Hi,
On Monday, May 08, 2017 08:11:16 AM Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> According to surrounding goto, it is likely that 'goto err_probed_panel' is
> expected here.
> This change is just done in order to silence some coccinelle scripts
> which try to detect wrongly ordered goto.
>
> If 'info->fb[HEAD_PANEL]' and' 'info->fb[HEAD_CRT]' are both NULL, this
> means that no 'framebuffer_alloc' has been performed, so 'goto err_alloc'
> looks fine.
> Anyway, it is also harmless in this case to call 'framebuffer_release'.
> The code looks more straight forward.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@xxxxxxxxxx>
It seems that the code for supporting only selected framebuffers
(only HEAD_PANEL fb or only HEAD_CRT fb) is broken anyway as at least
the suspend/resume support assumes that both framebuffers are always
present. Also all sm501fb driver users always try try to initialize
both framebuffers. Therefore I would prefer the removal of non-working
individual framebuffers support (the code that your patch modifies
would be removed as well). Could you please look into it?
> ---
> drivers/video/fbdev/sm501fb.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/video/fbdev/sm501fb.c b/drivers/video/fbdev/sm501fb.c
> index 67e314fdd947..4d89b045ce40 100644
> --- a/drivers/video/fbdev/sm501fb.c
> +++ b/drivers/video/fbdev/sm501fb.c
> @@ -1990,7 +1990,7 @@ static int sm501fb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> info->fb[HEAD_CRT] == NULL) {
> dev_err(dev, "no framebuffers found\n");
> ret = -ENODEV;
> - goto err_alloc;
> + goto err_probed_panel;
> }
>
> /* get the resources for both of the framebuffers */
Best regards,
--
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
--
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
