El Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:57:58AM +0100 Mark Brown ha dit:
> 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.
Moving the code around is related with the gotos, which are related
with the new set_voltage_sel. If we can agree that using goto is the
right thing to do (please see my rationale below) I could create a
separate patch introducing it. However this will only somewhat
mitigate the code moving around, since we still need separate paths
for set_voltage_time and set_voltage_time_sel.
> > > > + /* 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 main purpose is to avoid deeply nested code branches.
Without gotos I think we'd end up with something like this:
static int _regulator_do_set_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev,
int min_uV, int max_uV)
{
...
if (ret == 0 && !rdev->constraints->ramp_disable) {
if (rdev->desc->ops->set_voltage_time_sel) {
if (old_selector >= 0 && old_selector != selector)
rdev->desc->ops->set_voltage_time_sel(rdev, old_selector, selector);
} else {
if (old_uV != new_uV) {
if (rdev->desc->ops->set_voltage_time)
delay = rdev->desc->ops->set_voltage_time(rdev, old_uV, new_uV);
else
delay = _regulator_set_voltage_time(rdev, old_uV, new_uV);
}
}
// delay
}
}
I can change the patch accordingly if this is preferred.
> > > 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.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
