From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751446AbbJDKtk (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sun, 4 Oct 2015 06:49:40 -0400
Received: from mail-la0-f42.google.com ([209.85.215.42]:33520 "EHLO
	mail-la0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751315AbbJDKtj (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 4 Oct 2015 06:49:39 -0400
X-Google-Original-Sender: <johan@kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 06:50:56 -0400
From: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
Cc: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>, Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.com>,
        Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr>,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: misc: remove "complex return code" warnings
Message-ID: <20151004105056.GM4284@localhost>
References: <1443652647-23097-1-git-send-email-johan@kernel.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1510010716280.2233@localhost6.localdomain6>
 <20151001174718.GJ4284@localhost>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1510022328560.2163@localhost6.localdomain6>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1510022328560.2163@localhost6.localdomain6>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 11:33:46PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> Do you consider that this function would be better off in two lines?
> 
> static int mxt_acquire_irq(struct mxt_data *data)
> {
>         int error;
> 
>         enable_irq(data->irq);
> 
>         error = mxt_process_messages_until_invalid(data);
>         if (error)
>                 return error;
> 
>         return 0;
> }

Actually no, but again I'd say it's up to the author to decide.

> Would simplifying the code at the end of the following function be helpful
> or not?
> 
> static int adnp_gpio_setup(struct adnp *adnp, unsigned int num_gpios)
> {
>         struct gpio_chip *chip = &adnp->gpio;
>         int err;
> 
>         adnp->reg_shift = get_count_order(num_gpios) - 3;
> 
>         chip->direction_input = adnp_gpio_direction_input;
>         chip->direction_output = adnp_gpio_direction_output;
>         chip->get = adnp_gpio_get;
>         chip->set = adnp_gpio_set;
>         chip->can_sleep = true;
> 
>         if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_FS))
>                 chip->dbg_show = adnp_gpio_dbg_show;
> 
>         chip->base = -1;
>         chip->ngpio = num_gpios;
>         chip->label = adnp->client->name;
>         chip->dev = &adnp->client->dev;
>         chip->of_node = chip->dev->of_node;
>         chip->owner = THIS_MODULE;
> 
>         err = gpiochip_add(chip);
>         if (err)
>                 return err;
> 
>         return 0;
> }

I think this is just fine as is as well.

Thanks,
Johan