Huomenta, On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 10:49:19AM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > Hi, > > On 01/03/2024 10:46, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > Hi Markus, > > > > On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 08:46:25AM +0100, Markus Elfring wrote: > > > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 08:23:24 +0100 > > > > > > Avoid the specification of a duplicate fwnode_handle_put() call > > > in this function implementation. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c | 5 +---- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c > > > index ffe5f25f8647..eb708ed7b56e 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c > > > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c > > > @@ -3486,10 +3486,7 @@ static int ub960_parse_dt_rxports(struct ub960_data *priv) > > > } > > > } > > > > > > - fwnode_handle_put(links_fwnode); > > > - > > > - return 0; > > > - > > > + ret = 0; > > > > I think it'd be nicer to initialise ret as zero, then you can just drop the > > assignment above. > > I don't like successful execution entering error paths. That's why there's > the return 0. It could be called a common cleanup path as what you really want to do here is to put the fwnode handle, independently of whether there was an error. I think the current code is of course fine, too. Soon you can do struct fwnode_handle *links_fwnode __free(fwnode_handle); and forget about putting it (but you must need putting it). -- Terveisin, Sakari Ailus
