Re: [PATCH 1/2] extcon: max14577: Use common error handling code in max14577_muic_set_path()

Re: [PATCH 1/2] extcon: max14577: Use common error handling code in max14577_muic_set_path()

[SF Markus Elfring]

>> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
>> Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 19:33:58 +0200
>>
>> Add a jump target so that a bit of exception handling can be better reused
>> at the end of this function.
>>
>> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
>> ---
>>  drivers/extcon/extcon-max14577.c | 22 ++++++++++------------
>>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/extcon/extcon-max14577.c b/drivers/extcon/extcon-max14577.c
>> index f6414b7fa5bc..3d4bf5d23236 100644
>> --- a/drivers/extcon/extcon-max14577.c
>> +++ b/drivers/extcon/extcon-max14577.c
>> @@ -211,10 +211,8 @@ static int max14577_muic_set_path(struct max14577_muic_info *info,
>>  	ret = max14577_update_reg(info->max14577->regmap,
>>  				MAX14577_MUIC_REG_CONTROL1,
>>  				CLEAR_IDBEN_MICEN_MASK, CTRL1_SW_OPEN);
>> -	if (ret < 0) {
>> -		dev_err(info->dev, "failed to update MUIC register\n");
>> -		return ret;
>> -	}
>> +	if (ret < 0)
>> +		goto report_failure;
> 
> No, one exit path just to report error does not seem to be more readable.

I got an other development opinion on this aspect.


> Instead printing error after the register access looks to me
> as common pattern, easy to maintain.

Do you care if corresponding messages are different?


> This patch does not bring improvement, in my opinion.

How do you generally think about the change possibility for a bit of
code reduction?


>>  
>>  	if (attached)
>>  		ctrl1 = val;
>> @@ -224,10 +222,8 @@ static int max14577_muic_set_path(struct max14577_muic_info *info,
>>  	ret = max14577_update_reg(info->max14577->regmap,
>>  				MAX14577_MUIC_REG_CONTROL1,
>>  				CLEAR_IDBEN_MICEN_MASK, ctrl1);
>> -	if (ret < 0) {
>> -		dev_err(info->dev, "failed to update MUIC register\n");
>> -		return ret;
>> -	}
>> +	if (ret < 0)
>> +		goto report_failure;
>>  
>>  	if (attached)
>>  		ctrl2 |= CTRL2_CPEN_MASK;	/* LowPwr=0, CPEn=1 */
>> @@ -237,16 +233,18 @@ static int max14577_muic_set_path(struct max14577_muic_info *info,
>>  	ret = max14577_update_reg(info->max14577->regmap,
>>  			MAX14577_REG_CONTROL2,
>>  			CTRL2_LOWPWR_MASK | CTRL2_CPEN_MASK, ctrl2);
>> -	if (ret < 0) {
>> -		dev_err(info->dev, "failed to update MUIC register\n");
>> -		return ret;
>> -	}
>> +	if (ret < 0)
>> +		goto report_failure;
>>  
>>  	dev_dbg(info->dev,
>>  		"CONTROL1 : 0x%02x, CONTROL2 : 0x%02x, state : %s\n",
>>  		ctrl1, ctrl2, attached ? "attached" : "detached");
>>  
>>  	return 0;
>> +
>> +report_failure:
>> +	dev_err(info->dev, "failed to update MUIC register\n");
>> +	return ret;
>>  }
>>  
>>  /*
>> -- 
>> 2.14.2
>>


Would you like to take another look at remaining open issues
in source files from the pattern “extcon-max…”?

Regards,
Markus

Re: [PATCH 1/2] extcon: max14577: Use common error handling code in max14577_muic_set_path()

[SF Markus Elfring]

> As you commented, this patch might remove the redundant error message.
> But, it makes the code more complicated in side of readability.

Do you try to avoid duplicated code any more in other circumstances?

Regards,
Markus

Re: [PATCH 1/2] extcon: max14577: Use common error handling code in max14577_muic_set_path()

[Chanwoo Choi]

On 2017년 10월 23일 14:45, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
>> As you commented, this patch might remove the redundant error message.
>> But, it makes the code more complicated in side of readability.
> 
> Do you try to avoid duplicated code any more in other circumstances?

I usually used the goto statement on following cases:
- Return the value (error number if fail or 0 if success)
- Do free or unregister or remove operations when error happen.

I think that there is any benefit of this patch.
Also, as I commented, it make the code more complicated.

-- 
Best Regards,
Chanwoo Choi
Samsung Electronics

Re: extcon: max14577: Use common error handling code in max14577_muic_set_path()

[SF Markus Elfring]

> I think that there is any benefit of this patch.
> Also, as I commented, it make the code more complicated.

We have got different software development opinions about
the shown change possibilities then.

Regards,
Markus

Re: extcon: max14577: Use common error handling code in max14577_muic_set_path()

[Chanwoo Choi]

On 2017년 10월 23일 14:57, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
>> I think that there is any benefit of this patch.
>> Also, as I commented, it make the code more complicated.
> 
> We have got different software development opinions about

I agree absolutely. So, anyone can suggest the opinion and send patches.
But, all patches have to get the review from maintainer, reviewer
or the mailing-list developer.

(Please don't remove the part of my comment when you reply.)

> the shown change possibilities then.

-- 
Best Regards,
Chanwoo Choi
Samsung Electronics

Re: extcon: max14577: Use common error handling code in max14577_muic_set_path()

[SF Markus Elfring]

>>> I think that there is any benefit of this patch.
>>> Also, as I commented, it make the code more complicated.
>>
>> We have got different software development opinions about
> 
> I agree absolutely. So, anyone can suggest the opinion and send patches.
> But, all patches have to get the review from maintainer, reviewer
> or the mailing-list developer.

Can an other change acceptance evolve over time?


> (Please don't remove the part of my comment when you reply.)
> 
>> the shown change possibilities then.

Do you find similar updates more useful for any other software modules?

Regards,
Markus