[PATCH 2/2] tty:serial:mvebu-uart:fix a wrong return

[PATCH 2/2] tty:serial:mvebu-uart:fix a wrong return

[tangbin]

in this place,the right return should be
return PTR_ERR(),not return -PTR_ERR()

Signed-off-by: tangbin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com>
---
 drivers/tty/serial/mvebu-uart.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/mvebu-uart.c b/drivers/tty/serial/mvebu-uart.c
index c12a12556..4e9a59071 100644
--- a/drivers/tty/serial/mvebu-uart.c
+++ b/drivers/tty/serial/mvebu-uart.c
@@ -851,7 +851,7 @@ static int mvebu_uart_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 
 	port->membase = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, reg);
 	if (IS_ERR(port->membase))
-		return -PTR_ERR(port->membase);
+		return PTR_ERR(port->membase);
 
 	mvuart = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(struct mvebu_uart),
 			      GFP_KERNEL);
-- 
2.20.1.windows.1

Re: [PATCH 2/2] tty:serial:mvebu-uart:fix a wrong return

[Jiri Slaby]

On 03. 03. 20, 8:13, tangbin wrote:
> in this place,the right return should be
> return PTR_ERR(),not return -PTR_ERR()

One because missing. Like ", because PTR_ERR already returns a negative
error and the probe function is expected to return a negative value in
case of error."

Acked-by: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>

> Signed-off-by: tangbin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com>
> ---
>  drivers/tty/serial/mvebu-uart.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/mvebu-uart.c b/drivers/tty/serial/mvebu-uart.c
> index c12a12556..4e9a59071 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/mvebu-uart.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/mvebu-uart.c
> @@ -851,7 +851,7 @@ static int mvebu_uart_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  
>  	port->membase = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, reg);
>  	if (IS_ERR(port->membase))
> -		return -PTR_ERR(port->membase);
> +		return PTR_ERR(port->membase);
>  
>  	mvuart = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(struct mvebu_uart),
>  			      GFP_KERNEL);
> 


-- 
js
suse labs

Re: [PATCH 2/2] tty:serial:mvebu-uart:fix a wrong return

[Jiri Slaby]

On 04. 03. 20, 10:37, 唐彬 wrote:
>      I'm very happy for your replay. But I don't understand, in this
> place ,it's function is to judge.You say 'the probe function is expected
> to return a negative value in case of error'？But at the top or bottom
> of the code here in mvebu_uart_probe()，there are a lot of judgments
> that return negative numbers. How do you explain that?

That's exactly the point. The function should return a negative value
and PTR_ERR already returns a negative.

That is, your patch is correct, but your commit message missed an
explanation.

thanks,
-- 
js
suse labs