On Sunday 10 December 2017 07:22 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 06:27:32PM +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
diff --git a/sound/soc/nuc900/nuc900-ac97.c b/sound/soc/nuc900/nuc900-ac97.c
index 5e4fbd2d3479..71fce7c85c93 100644
--- a/sound/soc/nuc900/nuc900-ac97.c
+++ b/sound/soc/nuc900/nuc900-ac97.c
@@ -345,11 +345,10 @@ static int nuc900_ac97_drvprobe(struct platform_device *pdev)
goto out;
}
- nuc900_audio->irq_num = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
- if (nuc900_audio->irq_num <= 0) {
- ret = nuc900_audio->irq_num < 0 ? nuc900_audio->irq_num : -EBUSY;
+ ret = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
+ if (ret < 0)
The <= 0 was ok, see:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/18/41
Yeah, but is it ever going to return 0? That seems like a design error
and also really crap commenting if so
yes, It can return 0 on sprac platform and If you see the return of
platform_get_irq() 'return r ? r->start : -ENXIO;'. It should be
'return r && r->start? r->start : -ENXIO;'. We can not add checks here,
Because There's a bunch of platforms in the kernel they still use IRQ0
as valid.
I have separate mails where few maintainer ask me to add check for 0 and
few not.
Adding check for 0 will never harm.
regards,
dan carpenter
~arvind
--
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
