Hello Benjamin Tissoires,
The patch 2f31c5252910: "HID: Introduce hidpp, a module to handle
Logitech hid++ devices" from Sep 30, 2014, leads to the following
static checker warning:
drivers/hid/hid-logitech-hidpp.c:359 hidpp_root_get_protocol_version()
warn: should this return really be negated?
drivers/hid/hid-logitech-hidpp.c
342 static int hidpp_root_get_protocol_version(struct hidpp_device *hidpp)
343 {
344 struct hidpp_report response;
345 int ret;
346
347 ret = hidpp_send_fap_command_sync(hidpp,
348 HIDPP_PAGE_ROOT_IDX,
349 CMD_ROOT_GET_PROTOCOL_VERSION,
350 NULL, 0, &response);
351
352 if (ret == 1) {
^^^^^^^^
What does the "1" mean? Magic numbers are bad, yada yada yada.
353 hidpp->protocol_major = 1;
354 hidpp->protocol_minor = 0;
355 return 0;
356 }
357
358 if (ret)
359 return -ret;
^^^^^^^^^^^
This is wrong. The real problem is that hidpp_send_fap_command_sync()
mixes normal and custom error codes. The callers are inconsistent in
how they deal with it.
360
361 hidpp->protocol_major = response.fap.params[0];
362 hidpp->protocol_minor = response.fap.params[1];
363
364 return ret;
365 }
See also:
drivers/hid/hid-logitech-hidpp.c:398 hidpp_devicenametype_get_count() warn:
should this return really be negated?
drivers/hid/hid-logitech-hidpp.c:417 hidpp_devicenametype_get_device_name()
warn: should this return really be negated?
drivers/hid/hid-logitech-hidpp.c:524 hidpp_touchpad_get_raw_info() warn: should
this return really be negated?
regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
