From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@tuxon.dev>,
Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>,
Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
<linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
<linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] memory: atmel-ebi: use scoped device node handling to simplify error paths
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 17:38:34 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240814173834.000002c8@Huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240812-cleanup-h-of-node-put-memory-v1-1-5065a8f361d2@linaro.org>
On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 15:33:55 +0200
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> Obtain the device node reference with scoped/cleanup.h to reduce error
> handling and make the code a bit simpler.
>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Hi,
Comments inline.
> ---
> drivers/memory/atmel-ebi.c | 29 ++++++++++-------------------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/memory/atmel-ebi.c b/drivers/memory/atmel-ebi.c
> index e8bb5f37f5cb..fcbfc2655d8d 100644
> --- a/drivers/memory/atmel-ebi.c
> +++ b/drivers/memory/atmel-ebi.c
> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
> * Copyright (C) 2013 Jean-Jacques Hiblot <jjhiblot@traphandler.com>
> */
>
> +#include <linux/cleanup.h>
> #include <linux/clk.h>
> #include <linux/io.h>
> #include <linux/mfd/syscon.h>
> @@ -517,7 +518,7 @@ static int atmel_ebi_dev_disable(struct atmel_ebi *ebi, struct device_node *np)
> static int atmel_ebi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> - struct device_node *child, *np = dev->of_node, *smc_np;
> + struct device_node *child, *np = dev->of_node;
> struct atmel_ebi *ebi;
> int ret, reg_cells;
> struct clk *clk;
> @@ -541,30 +542,24 @@ static int atmel_ebi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> ebi->clk = clk;
>
> - smc_np = of_parse_phandle(dev->of_node, "atmel,smc", 0);
> + struct device_node *smc_np __free(device_node) = of_parse_phandle(dev->of_node,
> + "atmel,smc", 0);
Trivial:
I'd line break this as
> + struct device_node *smc_np __free(device_node) =
of_parse_phandle(dev->of_node, "atmel,smc", 0);
>
> ebi->smc.regmap = syscon_node_to_regmap(smc_np);
> - if (IS_ERR(ebi->smc.regmap)) {
> - ret = PTR_ERR(ebi->smc.regmap);
> - goto put_node;
> - }
> + if (IS_ERR(ebi->smc.regmap))
> + return PTR_ERR(ebi->smc.regmap);
>
> ebi->smc.layout = atmel_hsmc_get_reg_layout(smc_np);
> - if (IS_ERR(ebi->smc.layout)) {
> - ret = PTR_ERR(ebi->smc.layout);
> - goto put_node;
> - }
> + if (IS_ERR(ebi->smc.layout))
> + return PTR_ERR(ebi->smc.layout);
>
> ebi->smc.clk = of_clk_get(smc_np, 0);
> if (IS_ERR(ebi->smc.clk)) {
> - if (PTR_ERR(ebi->smc.clk) != -ENOENT) {
> - ret = PTR_ERR(ebi->smc.clk);
> - goto put_node;
> - }
> + if (PTR_ERR(ebi->smc.clk) != -ENOENT)
> + return PTR_ERR(ebi->smc.clk);
>
> ebi->smc.clk = NULL;
> }
> - of_node_put(smc_np);
The large change in scope is a bit inelegant as it now hangs on to
the smc_np much longer than before.
Maybe it's worth pulling out the modified code as a
atem_eb_probe_smc(struct device_node *smc_np, struct atmel_ebi_smc *smc )
or something like with a struct_group to define the atmel_ebi_smc
That would keep the tight scope for the data and generally simplify it
a bit.
> ret = clk_prepare_enable(ebi->smc.clk);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
> @@ -615,10 +610,6 @@ static int atmel_ebi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> }
>
> return of_platform_populate(np, NULL, NULL, dev);
> -
> -put_node:
> - of_node_put(smc_np);
> - return ret;
> }
>
> static __maybe_unused int atmel_ebi_resume(struct device *dev)
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>,
Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@tuxon.dev>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>,
Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@kernel.org>,
linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org,
Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] memory: atmel-ebi: use scoped device node handling to simplify error paths
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 17:38:34 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240814173834.000002c8@Huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240812-cleanup-h-of-node-put-memory-v1-1-5065a8f361d2@linaro.org>
On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 15:33:55 +0200
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> Obtain the device node reference with scoped/cleanup.h to reduce error
> handling and make the code a bit simpler.
>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Hi,
Comments inline.
> ---
> drivers/memory/atmel-ebi.c | 29 ++++++++++-------------------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/memory/atmel-ebi.c b/drivers/memory/atmel-ebi.c
> index e8bb5f37f5cb..fcbfc2655d8d 100644
> --- a/drivers/memory/atmel-ebi.c
> +++ b/drivers/memory/atmel-ebi.c
> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
> * Copyright (C) 2013 Jean-Jacques Hiblot <jjhiblot@traphandler.com>
> */
>
> +#include <linux/cleanup.h>
> #include <linux/clk.h>
> #include <linux/io.h>
> #include <linux/mfd/syscon.h>
> @@ -517,7 +518,7 @@ static int atmel_ebi_dev_disable(struct atmel_ebi *ebi, struct device_node *np)
> static int atmel_ebi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> - struct device_node *child, *np = dev->of_node, *smc_np;
> + struct device_node *child, *np = dev->of_node;
> struct atmel_ebi *ebi;
> int ret, reg_cells;
> struct clk *clk;
> @@ -541,30 +542,24 @@ static int atmel_ebi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> ebi->clk = clk;
>
> - smc_np = of_parse_phandle(dev->of_node, "atmel,smc", 0);
> + struct device_node *smc_np __free(device_node) = of_parse_phandle(dev->of_node,
> + "atmel,smc", 0);
Trivial:
I'd line break this as
> + struct device_node *smc_np __free(device_node) =
of_parse_phandle(dev->of_node, "atmel,smc", 0);
>
> ebi->smc.regmap = syscon_node_to_regmap(smc_np);
> - if (IS_ERR(ebi->smc.regmap)) {
> - ret = PTR_ERR(ebi->smc.regmap);
> - goto put_node;
> - }
> + if (IS_ERR(ebi->smc.regmap))
> + return PTR_ERR(ebi->smc.regmap);
>
> ebi->smc.layout = atmel_hsmc_get_reg_layout(smc_np);
> - if (IS_ERR(ebi->smc.layout)) {
> - ret = PTR_ERR(ebi->smc.layout);
> - goto put_node;
> - }
> + if (IS_ERR(ebi->smc.layout))
> + return PTR_ERR(ebi->smc.layout);
>
> ebi->smc.clk = of_clk_get(smc_np, 0);
> if (IS_ERR(ebi->smc.clk)) {
> - if (PTR_ERR(ebi->smc.clk) != -ENOENT) {
> - ret = PTR_ERR(ebi->smc.clk);
> - goto put_node;
> - }
> + if (PTR_ERR(ebi->smc.clk) != -ENOENT)
> + return PTR_ERR(ebi->smc.clk);
>
> ebi->smc.clk = NULL;
> }
> - of_node_put(smc_np);
The large change in scope is a bit inelegant as it now hangs on to
the smc_np much longer than before.
Maybe it's worth pulling out the modified code as a
atem_eb_probe_smc(struct device_node *smc_np, struct atmel_ebi_smc *smc )
or something like with a struct_group to define the atmel_ebi_smc
That would keep the tight scope for the data and generally simplify it
a bit.
> ret = clk_prepare_enable(ebi->smc.clk);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
> @@ -615,10 +610,6 @@ static int atmel_ebi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> }
>
> return of_platform_populate(np, NULL, NULL, dev);
> -
> -put_node:
> - of_node_put(smc_np);
> - return ret;
> }
>
> static __maybe_unused int atmel_ebi_resume(struct device *dev)
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-08-14 16:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-12 13:33 [PATCH 0/9] memory: simplify with scoped/cleanup.h for device nodes Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-08-12 13:33 ` [PATCH 1/9] memory: atmel-ebi: use scoped device node handling to simplify error paths Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-08-14 16:38 ` Jonathan Cameron [this message]
2024-08-14 16:38 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-08-14 17:56 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-08-14 17:56 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-08-12 13:33 ` [PATCH 2/9] memory: atmel-ebi: simplify with scoped for each OF child loop Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-08-14 16:39 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-08-14 16:39 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-08-12 13:33 ` [PATCH 3/9] memory: samsung: exynos5422-dmc: use scoped device node handling to simplify error paths Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-08-14 16:42 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-08-14 16:42 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-08-14 17:57 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-08-14 17:57 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-08-12 13:33 ` [PATCH 4/9] memory: stm32-fmc2-ebi: simplify with scoped for each OF child loop Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-08-14 16:45 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-08-14 16:45 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-08-14 17:59 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-08-14 17:59 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-08-12 13:33 ` [PATCH 5/9] memory: tegra-mc: " Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-08-14 16:50 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-08-14 16:50 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-08-12 13:34 ` [PATCH 6/9] memory: tegra124-emc: " Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-08-14 16:51 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-08-14 16:51 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-08-12 13:34 ` [PATCH 7/9] memory: tegra20-emc: " Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-08-14 16:52 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-08-14 16:52 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-08-12 13:34 ` [PATCH 8/9] memory: tegra30-emc: " Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-08-12 13:34 ` [PATCH 9/9] memory: ti-aemif: " Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-08-14 16:55 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-08-14 16:55 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-08-14 18:01 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-08-14 18:01 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20240814173834.000002c8@Huawei.com \
--to=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com \
--cc=alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com \
--cc=alim.akhtar@samsung.com \
--cc=claudiu.beznea@tuxon.dev \
--cc=jonathanh@nvidia.com \
--cc=krzk@kernel.org \
--cc=krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com \
--cc=linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lukasz.luba@arm.com \
--cc=mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com \
--cc=nicolas.ferre@microchip.com \
--cc=ssantosh@kernel.org \
--cc=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.