Quoting Doug Anderson (2018-10-09 14:18:26) > Hi, > On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 12:45 PM Stephen Boyd <swb...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > Quoting Doug Anderson (2018-10-09 10:48:55) > > > > > > Ah, you're suggesting separating the platform_get_irq() and the > > > request_irq() so that we call platform_get_irq() as the first thing in > > > the function but don't do the request_irq() until later. Yeah, that > > > could be done and I guess if you feel strongly about it I wouldn't > > > object to the change, but I don't feel it buys us a lot and I kind of > > > like keeping the two next to each other. Specifically why I don't > > > think it buys us a lot: > > > > > > 1. You still need the "dev_err" print, right? platform_get_irq() > > > doesn't automatically print errors for you I think. > > > > I usually leave it out. Who cares? Maybe we should throw a dev_err() > > into platform_get_irq() on failure so we can keep drivers cleaner and > > reduce a bunch of "can't find my IRQ" messages throughout the kernel. > > Yeah, all the boilerplate code is annoying. ...of course by hoisting > it up then you get a whole bunch of people that have "optional" IRQs > suddenly getting error messages spewed which is also no good. IMO the > convention of Linux drivers I've always reviewed is to print errors > like this, so unless that changes my vote is to follow convention. > > > > > 2. You now need a local variable "irq". By putting the > > > platform_get_irq() before the memory allocation you now can't store it > > > directly in mas->irq. We could try using "ret" as a temporary > > > variable but that seems worse in this case since it'd be a bit > > > fragile. > > > > > > 3. You don't get rid of any error labels / error handling so we don't > > > really save any code > > > > > > When I tried this my diffstat says 8 lines added and 7 removed, so a > > > net increase in LOC FWIW. I'm relying in gmail so my patch will be > > > whitespace-damaged (sigh), but you can find a clean one at: > > > > > > https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/kernel/+/e0325d618e209c22379e3a4269c14627b19243a8%5E%21/#F0 > > > > > > ...the basic idea is this though: > > > > > > > Thanks! Here's an updated patch that I haven't compile tested in any way > > that hoists up the IO mapping part too, which shows that the 'se' local > > variable is almost entirely useless. > > Yeah, I'd be all for getting rid of "se". I'm still not really seeing > the benefit of hoisting all the rest of the stuff up. Do you feel > strongly about it? > > In any case I think we've both said that all of our comments so far > are just nits and could be addressed in a followup patch. Unless Mark > Brown wants these nits fixed ahead of time or has other changes he'd > like, I don't think we're expecting another spin of this patch from > Alok or Dilip, right? We'd just expect them to post some follow-up > patches after Mark lands it? > >
Yes this is all nits territory. I don't really care too much, but the patch is already written, so might as well roll it all in and make things shiny. Time to get back to real work :P
