On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 01:34:41PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Wolfram, > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> That should have been caught by the !soc check above, and have already > >> returned with -ENODEV. > > > > Now I get it: You mean non-0 check, not non-NULL check... > > soc->data _is_ a pointer. You only cast it to an integer on the next line. Yes. I usually worked with it as an integer, so I got confused. Will fix.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
