On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 04:36:21PM +0000, Sidong Yang wrote: > On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 02:19:10PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > > Yes. Keep the error handling. Your way makes the code more complicated > > to read. > > I totally really agree with it. > Because the switch clause under this patch catches error with 'default:' > but it returns '-ENODEV'. I worried that it lost retval from reading > register if it has error. > I will add it back to the patch. thanks, Paulo A.
