On 2018/8/15 0:15, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > Hi, > > On 13/08/2018 19:31:24+0800, zhong jiang wrote: >> PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO has implemented the if(IS_ERR(...)) + PTR_ERR, So >> just replace them rather than duplicating its implement. >> >> Signed-off-by: zhong jiang <zhongjiang@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/rtc/rtc-digicolor.c | 4 +--- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-digicolor.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-digicolor.c >> index b253bf1..fd6850c 100644 >> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-digicolor.c >> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-digicolor.c >> @@ -202,10 +202,8 @@ static int __init dc_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> platform_set_drvdata(pdev, rtc); >> rtc->rtc_dev = devm_rtc_device_register(&pdev->dev, pdev->name, >> &dc_rtc_ops, THIS_MODULE); >> - if (IS_ERR(rtc->rtc_dev)) >> - return PTR_ERR(rtc->rtc_dev); >> >> - return 0; >> + return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(rtc->rtc_dev); > As many other maintainers, I don't find that kind of change useful and > I'm not taking them unless there are other improvements in the driver. > > Hi, Alexandre The issue is detected with the help of Coccinelle. It simplify the code with specific function rather than duplicating its implementation. The patch clean up the code. of course, it is not a bug. if you do not care about it. I am ok with that. Thanks, zhong jiang
