On 24/04/2024 16:52, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 at 16:46, Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 24/04/2024 14:29, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]>
>>>
>>
>>> qcadev->susclk = devm_clk_get_optional(&serdev->dev, NULL);
>>> if (IS_ERR(qcadev->susclk)) {
>>> @@ -2355,10 +2360,13 @@ static int qca_serdev_probe(struct serdev_device *serdev)
>>> qcadev->bt_en = devm_gpiod_get_optional(&serdev->dev, "enable",
>>> GPIOD_OUT_LOW);
>>> if (IS_ERR(qcadev->bt_en)) {
>>> - dev_warn(&serdev->dev, "failed to acquire enable gpio\n");
>>> - power_ctrl_enabled = false;
>>> + dev_err(&serdev->dev, "failed to acquire enable gpio\n");
>>> + return PTR_ERR(qcadev->bt_en);
>>> }
>>>
>>> + if (!qcadev->bt_en)
>>> + power_ctrl_enabled = false;
>>
>> This looks duplicated - you already have such check earlier.
>>
>
> It's under a different switch case!
Damn diff. Yeah, looks ok.
Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
Best regards,
Krzysztof