[PATCH 1/3] e1000: mtd: remove needless error checking for device parameter

[PATCH 1/3] e1000: mtd: remove needless error checking for device parameter

[Ahmad Fatoum]

The invm device is specifically created for the EEPROM, so adding a
parameter should not result in a name clash.

This leaves only -ENOMEM as possible error. As the driver is usable
without EEPROM being writable, don't propagate the error.

Signed-off-by: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@pengutronix.de>
---
 drivers/net/e1000/mtd.c | 10 ++--------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/e1000/mtd.c b/drivers/net/e1000/mtd.c
index 50883fc2a602..b2643dcf4340 100644
--- a/drivers/net/e1000/mtd.c
+++ b/drivers/net/e1000/mtd.c
@@ -702,7 +702,6 @@ static int e1000_register_invm(struct e1000_hw *hw)
 {
 	int ret;
 	u16 word;
-	struct param_d *p;
 
 	if (e1000_eeprom_valid(hw)) {
 		ret = e1000_read_eeprom(hw, 0x0a, 1, &word);
@@ -732,15 +731,10 @@ static int e1000_register_invm(struct e1000_hw *hw)
 		return ret;
 	}
 
-	p = dev_add_param_int(&hw->invm.dev, "lock", e1000_invm_set_lock,
+	dev_add_param_int(&hw->invm.dev, "lock", e1000_invm_set_lock,
 			      NULL, &hw->invm.line, "%u", hw);
-	if (IS_ERR(p)) {
-		unregister_device(&hw->invm.dev);
-		devfs_remove(&hw->invm.cdev);
-		ret = PTR_ERR(p);
-	}
 
-	return ret;
+	return 0;
 }
 
 /*
-- 
2.39.2

[PATCH 2/3] PWM: core: remove needless error checking for device parameter

[Ahmad Fatoum]

The PWM device is specifically created for purposes of the PWM
framework. There should thus be no naming clashes and -ENOMEM
is not a fatal error there either, because the PWM C API is
still usable without the device parameters.

Signed-off-by: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@pengutronix.de>
---
 drivers/pwm/core.c | 25 +++++++++----------------
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c
index 69724e1a5c26..4dd18d9446aa 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/core.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c
@@ -94,7 +94,6 @@ static int set_enable(struct param_d *p, void *priv)
 int pwmchip_add(struct pwm_chip *chip)
 {
 	struct pwm_device *pwm;
-	struct param_d *p;
 	int ret;
 
 	if (!chip->devname)
@@ -117,24 +116,18 @@ int pwmchip_add(struct pwm_chip *chip)
 
 	list_add_tail(&pwm->node, &pwm_list);
 
-	p = dev_add_param_uint32(&pwm->dev, "duty_ns", apply_params,
-			NULL, &pwm->params.duty_cycle, "%u", pwm);
-	if (IS_ERR(p))
-		return PTR_ERR(p);
+	dev_add_param_uint32(&pwm->dev, "duty_ns", apply_params,
+			     NULL, &pwm->params.duty_cycle, "%u", pwm);
 
-	p = dev_add_param_uint32(&pwm->dev, "period_ns", apply_params,
-			NULL, &pwm->params.period, "%u", pwm);
-	if (IS_ERR(p))
-		return PTR_ERR(p);
+	dev_add_param_uint32(&pwm->dev, "period_ns", apply_params,
+			     NULL, &pwm->params.period, "%u", pwm);
 
-	p = dev_add_param_bool(&pwm->dev, "enable", set_enable,
-			NULL, &pwm->params.enabled, pwm);
-	if (IS_ERR(p))
-		return PTR_ERR(p);
+	dev_add_param_bool(&pwm->dev, "enable", set_enable,
+			   NULL, &pwm->params.enabled, pwm);
 
-	p = dev_add_param_bool(&pwm->dev, "inverted", apply_params,
-			       NULL, &pwm->params.polarity, pwm);
-	return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(p);
+	dev_add_param_bool(&pwm->dev, "inverted", apply_params,
+			   NULL, &pwm->params.polarity, pwm);
+	return 0;
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pwmchip_add);
 
-- 
2.39.2

[PATCH 3/3] fpga: bridge: remove needless error checking for device parameter

[Ahmad Fatoum]

The bridge device is specifically created for purposes of the FPGA
bridge framework. There should thus be no naming clashes and
-ENOMEM is not a fatal error there either, because the PWM C API
is still usable without the device parameters.

Signed-off-by: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@pengutronix.de>
---
 drivers/fpga/fpga-bridge.c | 7 ++-----
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/fpga/fpga-bridge.c b/drivers/fpga/fpga-bridge.c
index 5db24cb5bd74..0ca8a2b513e9 100644
--- a/drivers/fpga/fpga-bridge.c
+++ b/drivers/fpga/fpga-bridge.c
@@ -183,7 +183,6 @@ int fpga_bridge_register(struct device *dev, const char *name,
 			 const struct fpga_bridge_ops *br_ops, void *priv)
 {
 	struct fpga_bridge *bridge;
-	struct param_d *p;
 	int ret = 0;
 
 	if (!name || !strlen(name)) {
@@ -213,10 +212,8 @@ int fpga_bridge_register(struct device *dev, const char *name,
 	dev->priv = bridge;
 
 	bridge->enable = 0;
-	p = dev_add_param_bool(&bridge->dev, "enable", set_enable,
-			       NULL, &bridge->enable, bridge);
-	if (IS_ERR(p))
-		return PTR_ERR(p);
+	dev_add_param_bool(&bridge->dev, "enable", set_enable,
+			   NULL, &bridge->enable, bridge);
 
 	of_platform_populate(dev->of_node, NULL, dev);
 
-- 
2.39.2

Re: [PATCH 1/3] e1000: mtd: remove needless error checking for device parameter

[Sascha Hauer]

On Mon, 01 Jul 2024 09:35:24 +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
> The invm device is specifically created for the EEPROM, so adding a
> parameter should not result in a name clash.
> 
> This leaves only -ENOMEM as possible error. As the driver is usable
> without EEPROM being writable, don't propagate the error.
> 
> 
> [...]

Applied, thanks!

[1/3] e1000: mtd: remove needless error checking for device parameter
      https://git.pengutronix.de/cgit/barebox/commit/?id=580b39673a36 (link may not be stable)
[2/3] PWM: core: remove needless error checking for device parameter
      https://git.pengutronix.de/cgit/barebox/commit/?id=27fef37a0792 (link may not be stable)
[3/3] fpga: bridge: remove needless error checking for device parameter
      https://git.pengutronix.de/cgit/barebox/commit/?id=0c64cff18f95 (link may not be stable)

Best regards,
-- 
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>