On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 11:13:19AM +0100, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> Hi
>
> Am 27.02.23 um 11:07 schrieb Dan Carpenter:
> > The error codes are not set on these error paths.
> >
> > Fixes: 145eed48de27 ("fbdev: Remove conflicting devices on PCI bus")
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Reviewed-by: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx>
>
> with the comments below addressed.
>
> > ---
> > drivers/video/fbdev/chipsfb.c | 14 ++++++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/video/fbdev/chipsfb.c b/drivers/video/fbdev/chipsfb.c
> > index cc37ec3f8fc1..98398789528a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/video/fbdev/chipsfb.c
> > +++ b/drivers/video/fbdev/chipsfb.c
> > @@ -358,16 +358,21 @@ static int chipsfb_pci_init(struct pci_dev *dp, const struct pci_device_id *ent)
> > if (rc)
> > return rc;
> > - if (pci_enable_device(dp) < 0) {
> > + rc = pci_enable_device(dp);
> > + if (rc < 0) {
> > dev_err(&dp->dev, "Cannot enable PCI device\n");
> > goto err_out;
> > }
> > - if ((dp->resource[0].flags & IORESOURCE_MEM) == 0)
> > + if ((dp->resource[0].flags & IORESOURCE_MEM) == 0) {
> > + rc = -EINVAL;
>
> I think ENODEV is more appropriate. And it's the default value from the
> original code.
Sorry, I read the original code and my mind saw -EINVAL where it was
actually -ENODEV as you say. Will resend.
regards,
dan carpenter
