[PATCH] staging: mfd: hi6421-spmi-pmic: Fix error return in hi6421_spmi_pmic_probe()

[PATCH] staging: mfd: hi6421-spmi-pmic: Fix error return in hi6421_spmi_pmic_probe()

[Jing Xiangfeng]

Fix to return error code -ENOMEM from the error handling case instead
of 0.

Signed-off-by: Jing Xiangfeng <jingxiangfeng@huawei.com>
---
 drivers/staging/hikey9xx/hi6421-spmi-pmic.c | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/hikey9xx/hi6421-spmi-pmic.c b/drivers/staging/hikey9xx/hi6421-spmi-pmic.c
index 64b30d263c8d..4f34a5282970 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/hikey9xx/hi6421-spmi-pmic.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/hikey9xx/hi6421-spmi-pmic.c
@@ -262,8 +262,10 @@ static int hi6421_spmi_pmic_probe(struct spmi_device *pdev)
 	hi6421_spmi_pmic_irq_prc(pmic);
 
 	pmic->irqs = devm_kzalloc(dev, HISI_IRQ_NUM * sizeof(int), GFP_KERNEL);
-	if (!pmic->irqs)
+	if (!pmic->irqs) {
+		ret = -ENOMEM;
 		goto irq_malloc;
+	}
 
 	pmic->domain = irq_domain_add_simple(np, HISI_IRQ_NUM, 0,
 					     &hi6421_spmi_domain_ops, pmic);
-- 
2.26.0.106.g9fadedd

Re: [PATCH] staging: mfd: hi6421-spmi-pmic: Fix error return in hi6421_spmi_pmic_probe()

[Dan Carpenter]

On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 03:48:47PM +0800, Jing Xiangfeng wrote:
> Fix to return error code -ENOMEM from the error handling case instead
> of 0.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jing Xiangfeng <jingxiangfeng@huawei.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/hikey9xx/hi6421-spmi-pmic.c | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/hikey9xx/hi6421-spmi-pmic.c b/drivers/staging/hikey9xx/hi6421-spmi-pmic.c
> index 64b30d263c8d..4f34a5282970 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/hikey9xx/hi6421-spmi-pmic.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/hikey9xx/hi6421-spmi-pmic.c
> @@ -262,8 +262,10 @@ static int hi6421_spmi_pmic_probe(struct spmi_device *pdev)
>  	hi6421_spmi_pmic_irq_prc(pmic);
>  
>  	pmic->irqs = devm_kzalloc(dev, HISI_IRQ_NUM * sizeof(int), GFP_KERNEL);
> -	if (!pmic->irqs)
> +	if (!pmic->irqs) {
> +		ret = -ENOMEM;
>  		goto irq_malloc;

It shouldn't do a goto, it should just return directly.  The goto
releases an IRQ which isn't acquired until later in the function.

regards,
dan carpenter