On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 04:50:38PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
now that we are monitoring the return value from attach, make the required changes to return proper value from its attach function.
Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee sudip@vectorindia.org
drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-parport.c | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-parport.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-parport.c index a1fac5a..761a775 100644 --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-parport.c +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-parport.c @@ -160,14 +160,14 @@ static void i2c_parport_irq(void *data) "SMBus alert received but no ARA client!\n"); }
-static void i2c_parport_attach(struct parport *port) +static int i2c_parport_attach(struct parport *port) { struct i2c_par *adapter;
adapter = kzalloc(sizeof(struct i2c_par), GFP_KERNEL); if (adapter == NULL) { printk(KERN_ERR "i2c-parport: Failed to kzalloc\n");
return;
return -ENOMEM;
ENOMEM does not need printout. Please remove printk while we are here.
pr_debug("i2c-parport: attaching to %s\n", port->name); @@ -230,13 +230,14 @@ static void i2c_parport_attach(struct parport *port) mutex_lock(&adapter_list_lock); list_add_tail(&adapter->node, &adapter_list); mutex_unlock(&adapter_list_lock);
- return;
return 0;
err_unregister: parport_release(adapter->pdev); parport_unregister_device(adapter->pdev); err_free: kfree(adapter);
return -ENODEV;
Ideally, we would return different -Esomething for each failing case. We can leave that for someone who is acutally using the driver. However, I wonder if ENODEV is a proper catch-all case because the driver core will not report failures.