On 15/08/2018 15:16:56+0800, zhong jiang wrote: > 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. > But this does not simplify or make the code clearer and as soon as you need to add code between the devm_rtc_device_register call and the end of the function, the patch will need to be undone. -- Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
