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: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 10:21:13 +0200 Message-ID: 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> <57839AE3.2070103@gmail.com> <1468294448.31247.28.camel@mtksdaap41> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1468294448.31247.28.camel@mtksdaap41> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: James Liao Cc: Sascha Hauer , Rob Herring , Kevin Hilman , Daniel Kurtz , srv_heupstream-NuS5LvNUpcJWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org, devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, linux-mediatek-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 12/07/16 05:34, James Liao wrote: > Hi Matthias, > > On Mon, 2016-07-11 at 15:10 +0200, Matthias Brugger wrote: >> >> 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 :) > > Yingjoe had tested in the latest checkpatch.pl and it showed checkpatch > warn on the else-branch. He had replied the results in previous email. > Yes you are right. Not sure what I was testing. Sorry for that. >>>>>> 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. > > I see. So you prefer to put the for(j < MAX_CLKS) after 'scpd->data = > data' right? I can change it in next patch. > Ok, thanks. Regards, Matthias -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html