On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 12:37:14PM +0530, Srinidhi Kasagar wrote: > On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 17:48:10 +0200, Lee Jones wrote: > > drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c: > > In function ‘synaptics_rmi4_resume’: > > drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c:1090:18: > > warning: ignoring return value of ‘regulator_enable’, declared > > with attribute warn_unused_result [-Wunused-result > > > > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> > > Cc: de...@driverdev.osuosl.org > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org> > > --- > > drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c | 4 +++- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c > > b/drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c > > index fe667dd..c4d013d 100644 > > --- a/drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c > > +++ b/drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c > > @@ -1087,7 +1087,9 @@ static int synaptics_rmi4_resume(struct device *dev) > > unsigned char intr_status; > > struct synaptics_rmi4_data *rmi4_data = dev_get_drvdata(dev); > > > > - regulator_enable(rmi4_data->regulator); > > + retval = regulator_enable(rmi4_data->regulator); > > + if (retval < 0) > > + return retval; > Does it make sense to add a dev_err? >
Is that a question? regulator_enable() already prints some warnings. Probably it's not going to fail and adding code that is duplicative or will never be run is pointless. regards, dan carpenter _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
