Re: [PATCH 2/2] ASoC: qcom: lpass-sc7180: Return 0 instead of 'ret' at the end of _resume()

[Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>]

On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 02:48:28PM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 2:12 PM Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > sc7180_lpass_dev_resume() returns 'ret' at the end of the function,
> > where 'ret' is always 0. Just return 0 to make it plain obvious that
> > this is always the success path.
> >
> > Also add an empty line between the error handling path and the
> > return.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
> > ---
> >
> >  sound/soc/qcom/lpass-sc7180.c | 3 ++-
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/sound/soc/qcom/lpass-sc7180.c b/sound/soc/qcom/lpass-sc7180.c
> > index 7a81e609727c..30a28e3152cb 100644
> > --- a/sound/soc/qcom/lpass-sc7180.c
> > +++ b/sound/soc/qcom/lpass-sc7180.c
> > @@ -173,7 +173,8 @@ static int sc7180_lpass_dev_resume(struct device *dev)
> >                 dev_err(dev, "sc7180 clk prepare and enable failed\n");
> >                 return ret;
> >         }
> > -       return ret;
> > +
> > +       return 0;
> 
> Yeah, I noticed this too when I was approving your pick. FWIW, I
> probably would have written this way, but it's 6 of one and half dozen
> of the other:
> 
> if (ret)
>   dev_err(dev, ...);
> return ret;

Yeah, I was considering this too, either is fine IMO :)

> ...but I just dug a tiny bit deeper and actually, there's no need for
> the error print here and it's just wasteful. clk_bulk_prepare_enable()
> already prints errors for you. So really this whole function could
> just be:
> 
> struct lpass_data *drvdata = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> return clk_bulk_prepare_enable(drvdata->num_clks, drvdata->clks);

Right, the log isn't really needed if clk_bulk_prepare_enable() already
logs errors. I'll adjust the patch accordingly, and drop the first one
since 'ret' is going away.

> I guess theoretically one could even go further and look at pm_clk,
> but perhaps that's overboard.

Maybe let's leave that for another iteration :)

Thanks for the review!

m.