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: <20210816111451.1180895-1-robert.foss@linaro.org> <YRqKRu6UVNy8OZh1@ravnborg.org>
In-Reply-To: <YRqKRu6UVNy8OZh1@ravnborg.org>
From:   Robert Foss <robert.foss@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 18 Aug 2021 18:15:15 +0200
Message-ID: <CAG3jFyudSGJ3+HqgEF6i2XpcfZGVwy3V8GuepUY2+0pc7VSZOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] drm/bridge: anx7625: Don't store unread return value
To:     Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
Cc:     Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@samsung.com>,
        Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>,
        Laurent Pinchart <Laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
        Jonas Karlman <jonas@kwiboo.se>,
        Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@gmail.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>, Xin Ji <xji@analogixsemi.com>,
        Pi-Hsun Shih <pihsun@chromium.org>,
        Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@google.com>,
        Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@chromium.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hey Sam,

> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/anx7625.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/anx7625.c
> > index 14d73fb1dd15b..3471785915c45 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/anx7625.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/anx7625.c
> > @@ -771,7 +771,7 @@ static int segments_edid_read(struct anx7625_data *ctx,
> >               ret = sp_tx_aux_rd(ctx, 0xf1);
> >
> >               if (ret) {
> > -                     ret = sp_tx_rst_aux(ctx);
> > +                     sp_tx_rst_aux(ctx);
> >                       DRM_DEV_ERROR(dev, "segment read fail, reset!\n");
> >               } else {
> >                       ret = anx7625_reg_block_read(ctx, ctx->i2c.rx_p0_client,
>
> From a quick look this seems to be the wrong fix.
> Replace return 0; with return ret; as the last line in this function
> looks like the correct fix to me.
> With a careful audit that the error handling is OK in said function.

Thanks for the suggestion, let me have a second look at it.

>
>         Sam