From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthias Brugger Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] soc: mediatek: Refine scpsys to support multiple platform Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 15:10:59 +0200 Message-ID: <57839AE3.2070103@gmail.com> References: <1463390894-32062-1-git-send-email-jamesjj.liao@mediatek.com> <1463390894-32062-2-git-send-email-jamesjj.liao@mediatek.com> <6762e420-0d68-0376-b584-bfc878b5e95f@gmail.com> <1467783564.26485.22.camel@mtksdaap41> <577E3AE9.5080202@gmail.com> <1468227390.31247.20.camel@mtksdaap41> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1468227390.31247.20.camel@mtksdaap41> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: James Liao Cc: Sascha Hauer , Rob Herring , Kevin Hilman , Daniel Kurtz , srv_heupstream@mediatek.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 11/07/16 10:56, James Liao wrote: [...] >>>>> @@ -467,28 +386,54 @@ static int scpsys_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>>> if (PTR_ERR(scpd->supply) == -ENODEV) >>>>> scpd->supply = NULL; >>>>> else >>>>> - return PTR_ERR(scpd->supply); >>>>> + return ERR_CAST(scpd->supply); >>>>> } >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> - pd_data->num_domains = NUM_DOMAINS; >>>>> + pd_data->num_domains = num; >>>>> >>>>> - for (i = 0; i < NUM_DOMAINS; i++) { >>>>> + init_clks(pdev, clk); >>>>> + >>>>> + for (i = 0; i < num; i++) { >>>>> struct scp_domain *scpd = &scp->domains[i]; >>>>> struct generic_pm_domain *genpd = &scpd->genpd; >>>>> const struct scp_domain_data *data = &scp_domain_data[i]; >>>>> >>>>> + for (j = 0; j < MAX_CLKS && data->clk_id[j]; j++) { >>>>> + struct clk *c = clk[data->clk_id[j]]; >>>>> + >>>>> + if (IS_ERR(c)) { >>>>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "%s: clk unavailable\n", >>>>> + data->name); >>>>> + return ERR_CAST(c); >>>>> + } >>>>> + >>>>> + scpd->clk[j] = c; >>>> >>>> Put this in the else branch. Apart from that is there any reason you >>> >>> Do you mean to change like this? >>> >>> if (IS_ERR(c)) { >>> ... >>> return ERR_CAST(c); >>> } else { >>> scpd->clk[j] = c; >>> } >>> >>> checkpatch.pl will warn for above code due to it returns in 'if' branch. >>> >> >> I tried that on top of next-20160706 and it checkpatch didn't throw any >> warning. Which kernel version are based on? > > I don't remember which version of checkpatch warn on this pattern. This > patch series develop across several kernel versions. We as the kernel community develop against master or linux-next. We only care about older kernel version in the sense that we intent hard not to break any userspace/kernel or firmware/kernel interfaces. Apart from that it's up to every individual to backport patches from mainline kernel to his respective version. But that's nothing the community as a hole can take care of. > > So do you prefer to put "scpd->clk[j] = c;" into 'else' branch? > Yes please :) >>>> moved the for up in the function? If not, I would prefer not to move it, >>>> to make it easier to read the diff. >>> >>> The new 'for' block are far different from original one. And I think >>> it's easy to read if we keep simple assign statements in the same block. >>> >> >> It's different in the sense that it checks if struct clk *c is an error. >> I don't see the reason why we need to move it up in the file. >> It's not too important but I would prefer not to move it if there is no >> reason. > > I think I may misunderstand your comments. Which 'for' block did you > mention for? 'for (i = 0; i < num ...' or 'for (j = 0; j < MAX_CLKS > && ...' ? > > The 'for(i)' exists in original code, this patch just change its counter > from 'NUM_DOMAINS' to 'num'. The 'for(j)' is a new for-block, so it was > not moved from other blocks. > for (j = 0; j < MAX_CLKS... is present in the actual scpsys_probe in linux-next (line 485 as of today). This patch moves this for a few lines up, to be precise before executing this code sequence: pd_data->domains[i] = genpd; scpd->scp = scp; scpd->data = data; AFAIK there is no reason to do so. It adds unnecessary complexity to the patch. So please fix this together with the other comments you got. Thanks a lot, Matthias