Re: [PATCH v3]ipmi:bt-bmc:Avoid unnecessary judgement

[Tang Bin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com>]

Hi Corey:

On 2020/4/13 22:23, Corey Minyard wrote:
>> Can I consider that the patch will be applied in 5.8？
> It's in my queue, so that's the plan.
>
>>>    I
>>> changed the title to be "Avoid unnecessary check".
>> You have modified it, which means I don't need to submit a new patch？
> Correct.

Thank you very much, I am waiting for the applied.


Then, I have some questions to ask you:

     I have checked the file bt-bmc.c carefully, and found that there 
are another two problems.Please help me analyze them, if you think it is 
feasible, then I will submit the patch.

     Q1: About Format Problem

            In the 469~471 line, the first letter should be indented, 
please check if the writing here is reasonable?


     Q2: About the function bt_bmc_config_irq()

           1）In the function bt_bmc_probe(), the return value of 
bt_bmc_config_irq() made no judgement, whether it is suitable? （If your 
view is don't need to judge, the following will change.）


           2）According to the kernel interface of platform_get_irq(),the 
return value is negative,

                    if (!bt_bmc->irq)
                         return -ENODEV;

                so the check here is invalid.The standard way to write is:

                      if (bt_bmc->irq < 0)
                           return bt_bmc->irq;

                But consider if failed, "bt_bmc->irq" must be assigned 
to "0"，the easiest way is to delete the        403~404 line, handled 
directly by the function devm_request_irq().


         Q3：About dev_warm()

                 KERN_WARNING is higher than KERN_INFO, the same to 
dev_warn() and dev_info(). When the function bt_bmc_probe() uses 
dev_info() to print error message, the dev_warm() in the line of 409 
should be redundant.


I am waiting for your replay, and thank you for your guidance.

Tang Bin