> If the function "platform_get_irq()" failed, the negative value > returned will not be detected here, including "-EPROBE_DEFER", I suggest to adjust this change description. Wording alternative: The negative return value (which could eventually be “-EPROBE_DEFER”) will not be detected here from a failed call of the function “platform_get_irq”. > which causes the application to fail to get the correct error message. Will another fine-tuning become relevant also for this wording? > Thus it must be fixed. Wording alternative: Thus adjust the error detection and corresponding exception handling. > Signed-off-by: Tang Bin <tangbin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Shengju Zhang <zhangshengju@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> How do you think about to add the tags “Fixes”, “Link” and “Reported-by”? https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=c0cc271173b2e1c2d8d0ceaef14e4dfa79eefc0d#n584 usb: gadget: fsl_udc_core: Checking for a failed platform_get_irq() call in fsl_udc_probe() https://lore.kernel.org/linux-usb/36341bb1-1e00-5eb1-d032-60dcc614ddaf@xxxxxx/ https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/8/442 … > +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/fsl_udc_core.c > @@ -2441,8 +2441,8 @@ static int fsl_udc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > udc_controller->max_ep = (dccparams & DCCPARAMS_DEN_MASK) * 2; > > udc_controller->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); > - if (!udc_controller->irq) { > - ret = -ENODEV; > + if (udc_controller->irq <= 0) { Will such a failure predicate need any more clarification? How does this check fit to the current software documentation? > + ret = udc_controller->irq ? : -ENODEV; Will it be clearer to specify values for all cases in such a conditional operator (instead of leaving one case empty)? Regards, Markus
