Le 20/02/2025 à 16:58, Lee Jones a écrit :
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
devm_mutex_init() may return -ENOMEM.
So this error should be handled in st1202_probe().
The start of a new sentence shouldn't warrant a line break.
Fixes: 259230378c65 ("leds: Add LED1202 I2C driver")
Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/leds/leds-st1202.c | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/leds/leds-st1202.c b/drivers/leds/leds-st1202.c
index b691c4886993..4fc17d518292 100644
--- a/drivers/leds/leds-st1202.c
+++ b/drivers/leds/leds-st1202.c
@@ -356,7 +356,10 @@ static int st1202_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
if (!chip)
return -ENOMEM;
- devm_mutex_init(&client->dev, &chip->lock);
+ ret = devm_mutex_init(&client->dev, &chip->lock);
+ if (ret < 0)
My assumption is that anything but 0 would be bad, thus:
if (ret)
Matter of taste. All other tests in this driver are "if (ret < 0)" or
"if (ret != 0)".
What do you prefer: consistency or concision? (my own choice goes to
consistency)
If you confirm concision, I'll send a v2 that also fix your other
comment above.
CJ
+ return ret;
+
chip->client = client;
ret = st1202_dt_init(chip);
--
2.48.1
