On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 08:45:44AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 23/04/2021 12:14, Greg KH wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 05:54:16PM +0800, tiantao (H) wrote: > >> > >> 在 2021/4/23 17:47, Greg KH 写道: > >>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 05:39:00PM +0800, Tian Tao wrote: > >>>> The value of 'ret' is not used, so just delete it. > > Tian Tao, please use scripts/get_maintainers.pl to get the list of > people needed for Cc. > > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Tian Tao <tiantao6@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> --- > >>>> drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c | 1 - > >>>> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c b/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c > >>>> index d9e4b67..d269d75 100644 > >>>> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c > >>>> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c > >>>> @@ -2220,7 +2220,6 @@ static int s3c24xx_serial_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > >>>> default: > >>>> dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "unsupported reg-io-width (%d)\n", > >>>> prop); > >>>> - ret = -EINVAL; > >>> That looks odd, shouldn't you do something with this instead of ignoring > >>> it??? > >> > >> How about this ？ > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c > >> b/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c > >> index d9e4b67..9fbc611 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c > >> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c > >> @@ -2220,8 +2220,7 @@ static int s3c24xx_serial_probe(struct platform_device > >> *pdev) > >> default: > >> dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "unsupported > >> reg-io-width (%d)\n", > >> prop); > >> - ret = -EINVAL; > >> - break; > >> + return -EINVAL; > >> > > > > You tell me, does the patch work for you? > > > > Is this really a "hard error" and did you now just break devices that > > used to work properly? Are you correctly unwinding any previously > > allocated state when you return here? > > > > Please do some research on this, and ideally, lots of testing, before > > submitting it as a real solution. > > It's a patch coming from automated tool (e.g. Coverity), so I doubt > there is any testing here. However the "return -EINVAL" looks correct here: > 1. No particular unwinding is needed here, > 2. It's an optional property (not used by existing DTS, only > non-upstreamed by Samsung) thus treating it as hard-error is fine. > Probably better to exit than convert it to some default value. So is that a "Reviwed-by:" or not? :)
