This if condition is reversed.  But fortunately, it has very little
impact on runtime behavior.

Fixes: ef7784e41db7 ("ASoC: soc-card: Add KUnit test case for snd_soc_card_get_kcontrol")
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
---
 sound/soc/soc-card-test.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-card-test.c b/sound/soc/soc-card-test.c
index 075c52fe82e5..a9fe7d243807 100644
--- a/sound/soc/soc-card-test.c
+++ b/sound/soc/soc-card-test.c
@@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ static int soc_card_test_case_init(struct kunit *test)
 	priv->card->owner = THIS_MODULE;
 
 	ret = snd_soc_register_card(priv->card);
-	if (!ret)
+	if (ret)
 		return ret;
 
 	return 0;
-- 
2.43.0

On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 10:38:02AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:

>  	ret = snd_soc_register_card(priv->card);
> -	if (!ret)
> +	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
>  
>  	return 0;

Clearly a better fix here would just be to remove the conditional
entirely.

On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 01:43:09PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 10:38:02AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> 
> >  	ret = snd_soc_register_card(priv->card);
> > -	if (!ret)
> > +	if (ret)
> >  		return ret;
> >  
> >  	return 0;
> 
> Clearly a better fix here would just be to remove the conditional
> entirely.

Hm...  Actually, it should be:

	if (ret) {
		put_device(priv->card_dev);
		return ret;
	}

	return 0;

Let me resend with that instead.

regards,
dan carpenter