On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 6:42 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva
<garsilva@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Propagate the return values of platform_get_irq and
devm_request_irq on failure.
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <garsilva@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/clocksource/em_sti.c | 9 +++++----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/em_sti.c b/drivers/clocksource/em_sti.c
index bc48cbf..c4818dd 100644
--- a/drivers/clocksource/em_sti.c
+++ b/drivers/clocksource/em_sti.c
@@ -305,7 +305,7 @@ static int em_sti_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
if (irq < 0) {
dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to get irq\n");
- return -EINVAL;
+ return irq;
}
/* map memory, let base point to the STI instance */
@@ -314,11 +314,12 @@ static int em_sti_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
if (IS_ERR(p->base))
return PTR_ERR(p->base);
- if (devm_request_irq(&pdev->dev, irq, em_sti_interrupt,
+ irq = devm_request_irq(&pdev->dev, irq, em_sti_interrupt,
IRQF_TIMER | IRQF_IRQPOLL | IRQF_NOBALANCING,
- dev_name(&pdev->dev), p)) {
+ dev_name(&pdev->dev), p);
+ if (irq) {
dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to request low IRQ\n");
- return -ENOENT;
+ return irq;
}
This works. Yet I think that 'ret' would be a better candidate for
taking the result of devm_request_irq, since it doesn't return the irq
number on success. Should someone decide to reference irq at a later
point in the code, this has to be changed.