On 18. 10. 23, 20:28, Hugo Villeneuve wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 09:12:40 +0000
Yi Yang <yiyang13@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The platform_get_irq() might be failed and return a negative result, there
should be return an error code when platform_get_irq() failed.
Fix it by add check return value of platform_get_irq().
Fixes: c4b058560762 ("serial:st-asc: Add ST ASC driver.")
Signed-off-by: Yi Yang <yiyang13@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/tty/serial/st-asc.c | 6 +++++-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/st-asc.c b/drivers/tty/serial/st-asc.c
index a821f5d76a26..8321167502dc 100644
--- a/drivers/tty/serial/st-asc.c
+++ b/drivers/tty/serial/st-asc.c
@@ -683,12 +683,16 @@ static int asc_init_port(struct asc_port *ascport,
struct resource *res;
int ret;
+ ret = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
Hi,
for readability, you could define a new irq variable instead of using
ret. See reasoning below.
+ if (ret < 0)
+ return ret;
+
port->iotype = UPIO_MEM;
port->flags = UPF_BOOT_AUTOCONF;
port->ops = &asc_uart_ops;
port->fifosize = ASC_FIFO_SIZE;
port->dev = &pdev->dev;
- port->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
+ port->irq = ret;
Assigning port->irq to irq instead of ret will make the code more
understandable.
Yes. And you need not to worry that someone will stick another
ret = something();
after platform_get_irq() above.
thanks,
--
js
suse labs
