> From: Vinod Koul, Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 5:46 PM
<snip>
> > > > static int rcar_gen3_phy_usb2_init(struct phy *p)
> > > > {
> > > > struct rcar_gen3_phy *rphy = phy_get_drvdata(p);
> > > > struct rcar_gen3_chan *channel = rphy->ch;
> > > > void __iomem *usb2_base = channel->base;
> > > > u32 val;
> > > > + int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!rcar_gen3_is_any_rphy_initialized(channel) && channel->irq >= 0) {
> > > > + INIT_WORK(&channel->work, rcar_gen3_phy_usb2_work);
> > > > + ret = request_irq(channel->irq, rcar_gen3_phy_usb2_irq,
> > > > + IRQF_SHARED, dev_name(channel->dev), channel);
> > > > + if (ret < 0)
> > > > + dev_err(channel->dev, "No irq handler (%d)\n",
> > > > + channel->irq);
> > >
> > > This could be in a single line :)
> >
> > Yes. We could be 80 over characters in a line now :)
> > I'll fix it.
> >
> > > Should we continue on error here?
> >
> > Hmm, maybe it's better if the request_irq() failed because
> > it can avoid unexpected behaviors. But, original code continued on error.
> > In this case, should I make a separated incremental patch to exit on error?
>
> Yes that would be better :), Always, a patch per change
Thank you for the reply. I got it :)
Best regards,
Yoshihiro Shimoda
