Hi Marek,
Marek Vasut <marex@xxxxxxx> wrote on Mon, 27 Apr 2020 21:46:44 +0200:
> On 4/27/20 8:08 PM, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> [...]
> >>>> /* FMC2 init routine */
> >>>> stm32_fmc2_init(fmc2);
> >>>> @@ -1997,7 +2001,7 @@ static int stm32_fmc2_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>>> /* Scan to find existence of the device */
> >>>> ret = nand_scan(chip, nand->ncs);
> >>>> if (ret)
> >>>> - goto err_scan;
> >>>> + goto err_dma_setup;
> >>>>
> >>>> ret = mtd_device_register(mtd, NULL, 0);
> >>>> if (ret)
> >>>> @@ -2010,7 +2014,7 @@ static int stm32_fmc2_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>>> err_device_register:
> >>>> nand_cleanup(chip);
> >>>>
> >>>> -err_scan:
> >>>> +err_dma_setup:
> >>>> if (fmc2->dma_ecc_ch)
> >>>> dma_release_channel(fmc2->dma_ecc_ch);
> >>>> if (fmc2->dma_tx_ch)
> >>>> @@ -2021,6 +2025,7 @@ static int stm32_fmc2_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>>> sg_free_table(&fmc2->dma_data_sg);
> >>>> sg_free_table(&fmc2->dma_ecc_sg);
> >>>>
> >>>> +err_clk_disable:
> >>>> clk_disable_unprepare(fmc2->clk);
> >>>>
> >>>> return ret;
> >>>
> >>> I didn't spot it during my earlier reviews but I really prefer using
> >>> labels explaining what you do than having the same name of the function
> >>> which failed. This way you don't have to rework the error path when
> >>> you handle an additional error.
> >>>
> >>> So, would you mind doing this in two steps:
> >>>
> >>> 1/
> >>> Replace
> >>>
> >>> err_scan:
> >>>
> >>> with, eg.
> >>>
> >>> release_dma_objs:
> >>
> >> The ^err_ prefix in failpath labels is useful, since it's easily
> >> possible to match on it with regexes ; not so much on arbitrary label name.
> >
> > I guess so, but is it actually useful to catch labels in a regex? (real
> > question)
>
> I find it useful to have a unified way to find those labels, e.g.
> err_because_foo:
> err_because_bar:
> err_last_one:
> is much nicer than:
> foo_failed:
> bar_also_failed:
> its_total_randomness:
My point being, Christophe, you can use err_ as a prefix but I think
it's better to use:
err_do_this_cleanup
than
err_this_failed
>
> > Any way I suppose catching ":\n" is already a good approximation to
> > find labels?
>
> Not very practical with git grep (^err.*: works nicely though)
I suppose ^.*:$ would work the same ;)
>
> >> btw would it make sense to split the first three patches of this series
> >> into a separate series ? This rawnand part seems more like an unrelated
> >> cleanup.
> >
> > As it seems that the MFD discussion can take longer, then I would say
> > yes, at least for the cleanup/misc changes part.
> Right
>
Cheers,
Miquèl
