Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220623132127.1248462-1-15815827059@163.com> <CAJZ5v0jC+B7K0uuE=wLi1hk+WATn5B8sSu6abSO00rYJ4ofRFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <18367cc4.16aa.1819382c273.Coremail.15815827059@163.com>
In-Reply-To: <18367cc4.16aa.1819382c273.Coremail.15815827059@163.com>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 29 Jun 2022 20:20:24 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hVmB4KH-RQdO25kuBes2iC3Md+DX2xjoLODL0LFJvV4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: LPSS: Fix missing check in register_device_clock
To:     huhai <15815827059@163.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        huhai <huhai@kylinos.cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 4:35 AM huhai <15815827059@163.com> wrote:
>
>
> At 2022-06-23 21:25:55, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
> >On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 3:21 PM huhai <15815827059@163.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: huhai <huhai@kylinos.cn>
> >>
> >> register_device_clock() misses a check for platform_device_register_simple().
> >> Add a check to fix it.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: huhai <huhai@kylinos.cn>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c | 3 +++
> >>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c
> >> index fbe0756259c5..c4d4d21391d7 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c
> >> @@ -422,6 +422,9 @@ static int register_device_clock(struct acpi_device *adev,
> >>         if (!lpss_clk_dev)
> >>                 lpt_register_clock_device();
> >>
> >> +       if (IS_ERR(lpss_clk_dev))
> >> +               return PTR_ERR(lpss_clk_dev);
> >> +
> >
> >Why not use IS_ERR_OR_NULL() instead?
>
> platform_device_register_simple() never returns NULL as it declared bellowing，
> so use IS_ERR() to validate the return value should be enough.
>
> /**
>  * platform_device_register_simple - add a platform-level device and its resources
>  * ...
>  * Returns &struct platform_device pointer on success, or ERR_PTR() on error.
>  */

Fair enough.

Applied as 5.20 material, thanks!