On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:36:01AM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote: ... > @@ -4215,7 +4215,9 @@ static int mv_platform_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > clk_disable_unprepare(hpriv->port_clks[port]); > clk_put(hpriv->port_clks[port]); > } > - phy_power_off(hpriv->port_phys[port]); > + rc = phy_power_off(hpriv->port_phys[port]); > + if (rc) > + return rc; So, this is a removal function which is ignoring failure from turning off phy, which seems like the right thing to do. The same thing with suspend routines. If something auxliary which isn't strictly necessary in reaching suspend state fails, the failure should be ignored. Running static code analysis to locate trivial irregularities and performing identity transformations is fine, even great, but you're changing the behavior here without actually understanding what's going on. Please don't do these things automatically. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
