Hi,
* Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> [151223 23:29]:
> [ It's weird that I'm just now getting this warning from 2014... Oh
> well, looks legit. -dan ]
Sorry for the delay on this one, got distracted few times with
other bugs to deal with. This seems like a valid warning yeah.
Tomi, do we really need two copies of the the same panels
files in kernel?
For example:
$ find . -name panel-sharp-ls037v7dw01.c
./drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/displays/panel-sharp-ls037v7dw01.c
./drivers/video/fbdev/omap2/omapfb/displays/panel-sharp-ls037v7dw01.c
> The patch 9522f9fe86f9: "OMAPDSS: panel-sharp-ls037v7dw01: update to
> use gpiod" from Apr 28, 2014, leads to the following static checker
> warning:
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/displays/panel-sharp-ls037v7dw01.c:213 sharp_ls_get_gpio()
> warn: 'gd' isn't an ERR_PTR
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/displays/panel-sharp-ls037v7dw01.c
> 200 static int sharp_ls_get_gpio(struct device *dev, int gpio, unsigned long flags,
> 201 char *desc, struct gpio_desc **gpiod)
> 202 {
> 203 struct gpio_desc *gd;
> 204 int r;
> 205
> 206 *gpiod = NULL;
> 207
> 208 r = devm_gpio_request_one(dev, gpio, flags, desc);
> 209 if (r)
> 210 return r == -ENOENT ? 0 : r;
> 211
> 212 gd = gpio_to_desc(gpio);
> 213 if (IS_ERR(gd))
> 214 return PTR_ERR(gd) == -ENOENT ? 0 : PTR_ERR(gd);
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> gd can be an ERR_PTR if gpio_to_desc is defined out but it's never
> -ENOENT.
Seems like we can just remove the check for -ENOENT here.
Rgards,
Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
