Re: [PATCH v7 5/6] rtc: s35390a: Add pinctrl

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] Mixing goto-based control flow with guard() cleanup in the same function.
--

commit dd254d343ff68630c82771ba28746846db1164dd
Author: Markus Probst <markus.probst@posteo.de>

rtc: s35390a: Add pinctrl

Allow configuration of pin functions, including keeping the previous 
configured function, disabling output, waking up the system, or 
minute periodical interrupt.

> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-s35390a.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-s35390a.c
> index 12ed504db94d8..66ae58ac06ddd 100644
> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-s35390a.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-s35390a.c

[ ... ]

> +static int s35390a_pinctrl_set_mux(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, unsigned int function,
> +				   unsigned int group)
> +{
> +	int err;
> +	u8 status2, flag, mask;
> +	struct s35390a *s35390a = pinctrl_dev_get_drvdata(pctldev);
> +
> +	mask = group == 0 ? S35390A_INT1_MODE_MASK : S35390A_INT2_MODE_MASK;
> +
> +	guard(mutex)(&s35390a->pinfunction_lock);
> +
> +	dev_dbg(&s35390a->client[0]->dev, "%s: function=%d group=%d\n",
> +		__func__, function, group);
> +
> +	if (function == s35390a->pinfunction[group])
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	if (function == S35390A_FUNC_IGNORE)
> +		goto end;

[Severity: Low]
Does mixing goto-based control flow with guard() cleanup in the same function
violate the cleanup subsystem guidelines?

The cleanup subsystem explicitly discourages mixing goto statements with
scope-based cleanups like guard() in the same function to prevent ownership
ambiguity.

While the lock will still be correctly released here when going out of scope
at the target label, would it be better to avoid the goto and rely completely
on scope-based returns?

[ ... ]

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260829-rtc_s35390a_int1-v7-0-debcd31143ae@posteo.de?part=5