Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.35 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.35;
Date:   Mon, 27 Nov 2023 08:53:56 +0000
From:   Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>
Cc:     Jiasheng Jiang <jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mfd: intel-lpss: Add missing check for
 platform_get_resource
Message-ID: <20231127085356.GD1470173@google.com>
References: <20230609014818.28475-1-jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>
 <ZWDhpZLCZ5xz1RKR@smile.fi.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <ZWDhpZLCZ5xz1RKR@smile.fi.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 24 Nov 2023, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 09:48:18AM +0800, Jiasheng Jiang wrote:
> > Add the missing check for platform_get_resource and return error
> > if it fails.
> 
> > Fixes: 4b45efe85263 ("mfd: Add support for Intel Sunrisepoint LPSS devices")
> 
> This does not fix anything and just introduces a duplication code.
> I would like this to be reverted. Should I send one?

Checking this value at the source of obtention and providing and earlier
return with arguably a better return value, all at the cost of an
inexpensive pointer comparison to NULL doesn't sound like a terrible
idea.

If you were committed to the idea of removing it, which I suggest you
reconsider, I would insist that you replace it with at least a comment.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]