On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 04:18:51PM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> El Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 07:32:30PM +0100 Mark Brown ha dit:
> > On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 12:03:15PM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > > - /* Call set_voltage_time_sel if successfully obtained old_selector */
> > > - if (ret == 0 && !rdev->constraints->ramp_disable && old_selector >= 0
> > > - && old_selector != selector) {
> > > + if (ret != 0 || rdev->constraints->ramp_disable)
> > > + goto no_delay;
> > You probably want to do the refactoring for splitting out decisions
> > about old_selector separately, it'll make the diff clearer.
> The old_selector conditions could be moved into the "else if
> (rdev->desc->ops->set_voltage_sel)" branch above, is that you mean?
No, what I mean is this change is doing a bunch of moving code around as
well as adding new things which makes it hard to spot where the new
things are. Moving the code around separately (that is, in a separate
patch) would make the review easier.
> > > + /* Insert any necessary delays */
> > > + if (delay >= 1000) {
> > > + mdelay(delay / 1000);
> > > + udelay(delay % 1000);
> > > + } else if (delay) {
> > > + udelay(delay);
> > > + }
> > > +no_delay:
> > Why were the gotos there?
> Not sure how to interpret your question. Would you prefer no to use
> gotos, should the notification be skipped in case the voltage is not
> changed, do you expect a comment, ...?
I mean I couldn't tell why a goto was a good idea for what seemed like
perfectly normal conditional logic. Either I couldn't tell because it's
not a good idea or it is a good idea but should be clearer in some way
but since I didn't really understand what the purpose of doing the gotos
was I can't say for sure either way.
> > The diff and I expect the resulting code would be a lot clearer if we
> > just left most of the function indented as it is and simply directly
> > returned set_voltage_time(). Which is what we do anyway so no need to
> > reindent the rest of the code.
> Ok, with your comment below on a default implementation this would
> become something like:
> if (ops->set_voltage_time) {
> return ops->set_voltage_time(...);
> } else if (!ops->set_voltage_time_sel) {
> return _regulator_set_voltage_time(..);
> }
I suspect you'll end up with more refactoring than that around
_set_voltage_time() and this'll be inside that function but I've lost
context here so ICBW.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
