On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 04:00:49PM +0800, ye.xingchen@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Ye Xingchen <ye.xingchen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Replace the open-code with dev_err_probe() to simplify the code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ye Xingchen <ye.xingchen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/remoteproc/da8xx_remoteproc.c | 10 +++-------
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/da8xx_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/da8xx_remoteproc.c
> index 98e0be9476a4..b2b7d3347949 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/da8xx_remoteproc.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/da8xx_remoteproc.c
> @@ -278,13 +278,9 @@ static int da8xx_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> }
>
> dsp_reset = devm_reset_control_get_exclusive(dev, NULL);
> - if (IS_ERR(dsp_reset)) {
> - if (PTR_ERR(dsp_reset) != -EPROBE_DEFER)
> - dev_err(dev, "unable to get reset control: %ld\n",
> - PTR_ERR(dsp_reset));
> -
> - return PTR_ERR(dsp_reset);
> - }
> + if (IS_ERR(dsp_reset))
> + return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(dsp_reset),
> + "unable to get reset control: %ld\n");
This patch is obviously wrong and doesn't even compile.
>
> if (dev->of_node) {
> ret = of_reserved_mem_device_init(dev);
> --
> 2.25.1
