From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
"Palmer Dabbelt" <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>, <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] cpuidle: riscv-sbi: Use scoped device node handling to simplify error paths
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 12:48:02 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240821124802.00000c35@Huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e006aa3d-3ec1-415f-a8d2-8aee6847a698@linaro.org>
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 11:36:32 +0200
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 19/08/2024 18:19, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 17:13:13 +0100
> > Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 17:09:29 +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>
> >> The original code looks suspect. See below.
> >
> > Whilst here... Why not do similar for state_node to avoid
> > the delayed return check.
> > Existing code
> > {
> > state_node = of_get_cpu_state_node(cpu_node, i - 1);
> > if (!state_node)
> > break;
>
> I don't see how __free() helps here. You can return regardless of __free().
>
> >
> > ret = sbi_dt_parse_state_node(state_node, &states[i]);
> > of_node_put(state_node);
>
> ... and this code is quite easy to read: you get reference and
> immediately release it.
>
> >
> > if (ret)
> > //another bug here on holding cpu_node btw.
> > return ret;
> > pr_debug("sbi-state %#x index %d\n", states[i], i);
> > }
> > //I think only path to this is is early break above.
> > if (i != state_count) {
> > ret = -ENODEV;
> > goto fail;
> > }
> > Can be something like
> >
> > {
> > struct device_node *state_node __free(device_node) =
> > = of_get-cpu_State_nod(cpu_node, i - 1);
> >
> > if (!state_node)
> > return -ENODEV;
> >
> > ret = sbi_dt_parse_state_node(state_node, &states[i]);
> > if (ret)
> > return ret;
> >
> > pr_debug("sbi-state %#x index %d\n", states[i], i);
> > }
> >
>
> Maybe I miss something, but I do not see how the __free() simplifies
> here anything.
Personal preference. To my eyes, it does, but indeed not a huge
advantage.
Jonathan
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
"Palmer Dabbelt" <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>, <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] cpuidle: riscv-sbi: Use scoped device node handling to simplify error paths
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 12:48:02 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240821124802.00000c35@Huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e006aa3d-3ec1-415f-a8d2-8aee6847a698@linaro.org>
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 11:36:32 +0200
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 19/08/2024 18:19, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 17:13:13 +0100
> > Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 17:09:29 +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>
> >> The original code looks suspect. See below.
> >
> > Whilst here... Why not do similar for state_node to avoid
> > the delayed return check.
> > Existing code
> > {
> > state_node = of_get_cpu_state_node(cpu_node, i - 1);
> > if (!state_node)
> > break;
>
> I don't see how __free() helps here. You can return regardless of __free().
>
> >
> > ret = sbi_dt_parse_state_node(state_node, &states[i]);
> > of_node_put(state_node);
>
> ... and this code is quite easy to read: you get reference and
> immediately release it.
>
> >
> > if (ret)
> > //another bug here on holding cpu_node btw.
> > return ret;
> > pr_debug("sbi-state %#x index %d\n", states[i], i);
> > }
> > //I think only path to this is is early break above.
> > if (i != state_count) {
> > ret = -ENODEV;
> > goto fail;
> > }
> > Can be something like
> >
> > {
> > struct device_node *state_node __free(device_node) =
> > = of_get-cpu_State_nod(cpu_node, i - 1);
> >
> > if (!state_node)
> > return -ENODEV;
> >
> > ret = sbi_dt_parse_state_node(state_node, &states[i]);
> > if (ret)
> > return ret;
> >
> > pr_debug("sbi-state %#x index %d\n", states[i], i);
> > }
> >
>
> Maybe I miss something, but I do not see how the __free() simplifies
> here anything.
Personal preference. To my eyes, it does, but indeed not a huge
advantage.
Jonathan
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-08-21 11:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-16 15:09 [PATCH 1/4] cpuidle: psci: Simplify with scoped for each OF child loop Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-08-16 15:09 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-08-16 15:09 ` [PATCH 2/4] cpuidle: riscv-sbi: Use scoped device node handling to simplify error paths Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-08-16 15:09 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-08-19 16:13 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-08-19 16:13 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-08-19 16:19 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-08-19 16:19 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-08-20 9:36 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-08-20 9:36 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-08-21 11:48 ` Jonathan Cameron [this message]
2024-08-21 11:48 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-08-20 9:29 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-08-20 9:29 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-08-16 15:09 ` [PATCH 3/4] cpuidle: riscv-sbi: Simplify with scoped for each OF child loop Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-08-16 15:09 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-08-19 16:24 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-08-19 16:24 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-08-16 15:09 ` [PATCH 4/4] cpuidle: dt_idle_genpd: " Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-08-16 15:09 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-08-19 16:26 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-08-19 16:26 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-08-20 9:34 ` Ulf Hansson
2024-08-20 9:34 ` Ulf Hansson
2024-08-19 16:11 ` [PATCH 1/4] cpuidle: psci: " Jonathan Cameron
2024-08-19 16:11 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-08-20 9:33 ` Ulf Hansson
2024-08-20 9:33 ` Ulf Hansson
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=20240821124802.00000c35@Huawei.com \
--to=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=anup@brainfault.org \
--cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
--cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.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-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=paul.walmsley@sifive.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=ulf.hansson@linaro.org \
/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.