| Message ID | 1341380023-5713-1-git-send-email-tianyu.lan@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/ac.c b/drivers/acpi/ac.c index 6512b20..d1fcbc0 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/ac.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/ac.c @@ -292,7 +292,9 @@ static int acpi_ac_add(struct acpi_device *device) ac->charger.properties = ac_props; ac->charger.num_properties = ARRAY_SIZE(ac_props); ac->charger.get_property = get_ac_property; - power_supply_register(&ac->device->dev, &ac->charger); + result = power_supply_register(&ac->device->dev, &ac->charger); + if (result) + goto end; printk(KERN_INFO PREFIX "%s [%s] (%s)\n", acpi_device_name(device), acpi_device_bid(device),
In the ac.c, lack check return value of power_supply_register(). This may casue that acpi driver's add() ops was called successful while the device may be failed to be initalized. For example, some ugly bios may describe two ACADs in the same dsdt. They use the same name which will cause the second ACAD device can no be registered. And then power_supply_register() failed. But acpi driver's add() ops is called sucessfully. The acpi device also will receive acpi notification and cause oops. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772730 Signed-off-by: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com> --- drivers/acpi/ac.c | 4 +++- 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)