On 03/05/2019 2:19 PM, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Fri, 12 Apr 2019, Fabien Dessenne wrote: > >> The second parameter of devm_add_action_or_reset() shall be a function, >> not a function address. >> >> Signed-off-by: Fabien Dessenne <fabien.dessenne@xxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/hid/hid-rmi.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-rmi.c b/drivers/hid/hid-rmi.c >> index 9e33165..8748d4d 100644 >> --- a/drivers/hid/hid-rmi.c >> +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-rmi.c >> @@ -623,7 +623,7 @@ static int rmi_setup_irq_domain(struct hid_device *hdev) >> if (!hdata->domain) >> return -ENOMEM; >> >> - ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(&hdev->dev, &rmi_irq_teardown, hdata); >> + ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(&hdev->dev, rmi_irq_teardown, hdata); > Why do you think this is wrong C? Because I was not aware that both func and &func refer to the same function pointer. Now I know :) >
