Hi Tony, On 14/01/16 01:22, Tony Lindgren wrote: > 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 Strictly no, but I think this is the best way forward. Longer story: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.dri.devel/143151 >> 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. Yep. Writing a patch for this and the other panel-sharp-ls037v7dw01 error Dan reported is on my todo. Tomi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
