On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 05:42:44PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 04:04:14PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > @@ -75,20 +75,16 @@ static int fbtft_request_one_gpio(struct fbtft_par *par,
> > struct gpio_desc **gpiop)
> > {
> > struct device *dev = par->info->device;
> > - int ret = 0;
> >
> > *gpiop = devm_gpiod_get_index_optional(dev, name, index,
> > GPIOD_OUT_LOW);
> > - if (IS_ERR(*gpiop)) {
> > - ret = PTR_ERR(*gpiop);
> > - dev_err(dev,
> > - "Failed to request %s GPIO: %d\n", name, ret);
> > - return ret;
> > - }
> > + if (IS_ERR(*gpiop))
> > + dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(*gpiop), "Failed to request %s GPIO\n", name);
>
> This should be a return statement:
>
> return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(*gpiop), "Failed to request %s GPIO\n", name);
>
I've created a new Smatch check for these:
drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251xfd/mcp251xfd-core.c:2890 mcp251xfd_probe() warn: pointer error 'PTR_ERR(clk)' not handled
There aren't that many bugs... Anyway, I'm running a test now and I
guess we'll see tomorrow how it goes.
regards,
dan carpenter
