pinctrl: st: Fix checking return value of syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle()
Subsystems (2)
PATCH 1/1 pinctrl: st: Fix checking return value of syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle()
syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle() returns ERR_PTR on error.
--- drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c +2 -2
@@ -1299,9 +1299,9 @@ static int st_pctl_probe_dt(struct platform_device *pdev,return -ENOMEM ; info->regmap =syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle (np,"st,syscfg" ); -if (!info->regmap) { +if (IS_ERR (info->regmap)) {dev_err (info->dev,"No syscfg phandle specified\n" ); -return -ENOMEM ; +return PTR_ERR (info->regmap); } info->data =of_match_node (st_pctl_of_match, np)->data;
Signature · 1 line
1.8.1.2
Thankyou Axel for looking at this.
There is already a patch is submitted for this.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/6/26/494 which I have Acked.
Thanks,
srini
Quoted 24 lines · Axel Lin
syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle()returnsERR_PTRon error.Signed-off-by Axel Lin <[email protected]>--- drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c +2
-2@@ -1299,9 +1299,9 @@ static int st_pctl_probe_dt(struct platform_device *pdev,return -ENOMEM ; info->regmap =syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle (np,"st,syscfg" ); -if (!info->regmap) { +if (IS_ERR (info->regmap)) {dev_err (info->dev,"No syscfg phandle specified\n" ); -return -ENOMEM ; +return PTR_ERR (info->regmap); } info->data =of_match_node (st_pctl_of_match, np)->data;
2013/6/28 Srinivas KANDAGATLA <[email protected]>:
Quoted 4 lines
Thankyou Axel for looking at this.
There is already a patch is submitted for this.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/6/26/494 which I have Acked.
That is strange.
I don't think the patch you mentioned can be applied to current pinctrl tree. Current code does check pinctrl_register by IS_ERR.
info->pctl = pinctrl_register(pctl_desc, &pdev->dev, info);
if (IS_ERR(info->pctl)) {Regards,
Axel
Quoted 9 lines · Axel Lin
2013/6/28 Srinivas KANDAGATLA <[email protected]>:
Quoted 4 lines
Thankyou Axel for looking at this.
There is already a patch is submitted for this.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/6/26/494 which I have Acked.That is strange.
I don't think the patch you mentioned can be applied to current pinctrl tree. Current code does checkpinctrl_registerbyIS_ERR.
The patch removes the IS_ERR, because, pinctrl_register returns NULL or a valid pointer, using IS_ERR is this case is incorrect.
Thanks,
srini
Quoted 8 lines
info->pctl = pinctrl_register(pctl_desc, &pdev->dev, info); if (IS_ERR(info->pctl)) {Regards,
Axel
2013/6/28 Srinivas KANDAGATLA <[email protected]>:
Quoted 12 lines · Axel Lin
Quoted 9 lines
2013/6/28 Srinivas KANDAGATLA <[email protected]>:
Quoted 4 lines
Thankyou Axel for looking at this.
There is already a patch is submitted for this.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/6/26/494 which I have Acked.That is strange.
I don't think the patch you mentioned can be applied to current pinctrl tree. Current code does checkpinctrl_registerbyIS_ERR.The patch removes the
IS_ERR, because,pinctrl_registerreturns NULL or a valid pointer, usingIS_ERRis this case is incorrect.
You are right.
Thanks,
Axel