Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201212161831.GA28098@roeck-us.net> <20201222205402.2269377-1-ndesaulniers@google.com>
 <fe77cdc9-7ef1-a300-259b-65b451b2551a@physik.fu-berlin.de>
In-Reply-To: <fe77cdc9-7ef1-a300-259b-65b451b2551a@physik.fu-berlin.de>
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 Jan 2021 21:42:21 +0100
Message-ID: <CANiq72nXe_BAyxb+VVf0CSCm749FLsQ5c6wCQQNc97ef_Z8YwA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sh: check return code of request_irq
To:     John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>
Cc:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@users.sourceforge.jp>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>,
        Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 1, 2021 at 2:50 PM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
<glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>
> Verified on my SH-7785LCR board. Boots fine.
>
> Tested-by: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>

Thanks for testing, John!

I think Masahiro was concerned about the error case (I assume you
tested the happy path).

In any case, if no maintainer suggests something else, looks good to
me (and it is no worse than the status quo unless the `pr_err()` can
somehow kill it), so:

    Reviewed-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>

Cheers,
Miguel