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

[SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>]

>> 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