| Message ID | 20240212130247.9985-3-raag.jadav@intel.com |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Headers | show |
| Series | DesignWare PWM improvements | expand |
Hello, On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 06:32:44PM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote: > pcim_iomap_table() fails only if pcim_iomap_regions() fails. No need to > check for failure if the latter is already successful. > > Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@intel.com> > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> > --- > drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c | 4 ---- > 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c > index a4a057ae03ea..b9e18dbf7493 100644 > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c > @@ -50,10 +50,6 @@ static int dwc_pwm_probe(struct pci_dev *pci, const struct pci_device_id *id) > } > > dwc->base = pcim_iomap_table(pci)[0]; > - if (!dwc->base) { > - dev_err(dev, "Base address missing\n"); > - return -ENOMEM; > - } As just written in reply to v2, I'd like to have a comment here saying that pcim_iomap_table() won't fail after pcim_iomap_table() to prevent someone sending a patch that undoes this change with the reasoning that pcim_iomap_table()'s return value should be checked. Best regards Uwe
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c index a4a057ae03ea..b9e18dbf7493 100644 --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c @@ -50,10 +50,6 @@ static int dwc_pwm_probe(struct pci_dev *pci, const struct pci_device_id *id) } dwc->base = pcim_iomap_table(pci)[0]; - if (!dwc->base) { - dev_err(dev, "Base address missing\n"); - return -ENOMEM; - } ret = devm_pwmchip_add(dev, &dwc->chip); if (ret)