Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 3 Apr 2019 18:31:15 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
Cc:     Wen Yang <wen.yang99@zte.com.cn>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        Yi Wang <wang.yi59@zte.com.cn>
Subject: Re: [5/7] cpufreq/pasemi: Checking implementation of
 pas_cpufreq_cpu_init()
Message-ID: <20190403153115.GA22624@kadam>
References: <1554082674-2049-6-git-send-email-wen.yang99@zte.com.cn>
 <c0c9c429-a09f-41ba-611d-123b64e410c8@web.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <c0c9c429-a09f-41ba-611d-123b64e410c8@web.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 04:23:54PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > @@ -146,6 +146,7 @@  static int pas_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> >
> >  	cpu = of_get_cpu_node(policy->cpu, NULL);
> >
> > +	of_node_put(cpu);
> >  	if (!cpu)
> >  		goto out;
> 
> Can the statement “return -ENODEV” be nicer as exception handling
> in the if branch of this source code place?
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/drivers/cpufreq/pasemi-cpufreq.c?id=bf97b82f37c6d90e16de001d0659644c57fa490d#n137
> 

Why am I only receiving only one side of this conversation?

I don't know why you're responding to...  It's not required to fix/change
unrelated style choices.  If people want, they can just focus on their
own thing.

regards,
dan carpenter