Re: [PATCH v2] PCI: brcmstb: fix a missing if statement on a return error check

Re: [PATCH v2] PCI: brcmstb: fix a missing if statement on a return error check

[Jim Quinlan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1041 bytes --]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 7:49 AM Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de> wrote:
>
> > The error return ret is not being check with an if statement and
>
> Wording alternative:
> The return value from a call of the function “brcm_phy_start” was not checked and
>
>
> > V2: disable clock as noted by Florian Fainelli and suggested by
> >     Jim Quinlan.
>
> Alex Dewar contributed another update suggestion.
>
> [PATCH v2] PCI: brcmstb: Add missing if statement and error path
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20200921211623.33908-1-alex.dewar90@gmail.com/
> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1309860/
>
> The exception handling needs further development considerations
> for this function implementation.
Hello,

I agree with Alex's patch.  I should have suggested this at the
beginning but as our upstream STB suspend/resume is not yet functional
and the one-line change would have worked until we fixed
suspend/resume..  But this is the proper modification.

Thanks,
Jim
> Regards,
> Markus

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4167 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v2] PCI: brcmstb: fix a missing if statement on a return error check

[Colin Ian King]

On 22/09/2020 13:43, Jim Quinlan wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 7:49 AM Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de> wrote:
>>
>>> The error return ret is not being check with an if statement and
>>
>> Wording alternative:
>> The return value from a call of the function “brcm_phy_start” was not checked and
>>
>>
>>> V2: disable clock as noted by Florian Fainelli and suggested by
>>>     Jim Quinlan.
>>
>> Alex Dewar contributed another update suggestion.
>>
>> [PATCH v2] PCI: brcmstb: Add missing if statement and error path
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20200921211623.33908-1-alex.dewar90@gmail.com/
>> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1309860/
>>
>> The exception handling needs further development considerations
>> for this function implementation.
> Hello,
> 
> I agree with Alex's patch.  I should have suggested this at the
> beginning but as our upstream STB suspend/resume is not yet functional
> and the one-line change would have worked until we fixed
> suspend/resume..  But this is the proper modification.

Yup, go with Alex's patch. That one is correct.


> 
> Thanks,
> Jim
>> Regards,
>> Markus