On Fri, 2024-09-20 at 08:17 +0000, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 09:22:52AM +0200, Nuno Sa via B4 Relay wrote:
> > From: Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > During adp5588_setup(), we read all the events to clear the event FIFO.
> > However, adp5588_read() just calls i2c_smbus_read_byte_data() which
> > returns the byte read in case everything goes well. Hence, we need to
> > explicitly check for a negative error code instead of checking for
> > something different than 0.
> >
> > Fixes: e960309ce318 ("Input: adp5588-keys - bail out on returned error")
> > Signed-off-by: Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/input/keyboard/adp5588-keys.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/input/keyboard/adp5588-keys.c
> > b/drivers/input/keyboard/adp5588-keys.c
> > index b5f4becf5cb6f..d25d63a807f23 100644
> > --- a/drivers/input/keyboard/adp5588-keys.c
> > +++ b/drivers/input/keyboard/adp5588-keys.c
> > @@ -620,7 +620,7 @@ static int adp5588_setup(struct adp5588_kpad *kpad)
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < KEYP_MAX_EVENT; i++) {
> > ret = adp5588_read(client, KEY_EVENTA);
> > - if (ret)
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > return ret;
> > }
>
> Hmm... There are a bunch of places where we do not check result of
> adp5588_read(). I wonder if we should:
>
> 1. add the checks
> 2. change it to return error or 0 and return the value through a pointer
> argument.
It does make sense. I can take care of that.
And similar work will be needed in the adp5589 driver. I'll include it in the series
I'm preparing for the FW properties.
- Nuno Sá
