Hi Rob,
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 8:31 PM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 05:00:06PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > of_unittest_apply_overlay_check() and the first part of
> > of_unittest_apply_revert_overlay_check() are identical.
> > Reduce code duplication by replacing them by two wrappers around a
> > common helper.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/of/unittest.c | 61 ++++++++++++++++---------------------------
> > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
>
> I would do something like this instead:
>
> 8<-------------------------------------------------------------------
> diff --git a/drivers/of/unittest.c b/drivers/of/unittest.c
> index a406a12eb208..a9635935aa26 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/unittest.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/unittest.c
> @@ -2102,7 +2102,7 @@ static int __init of_unittest_apply_overlay(int overlay_nr, int *ovcs_id)
> }
>
> /* apply an overlay while checking before and after states */
> -static int __init of_unittest_apply_overlay_check(int overlay_nr,
> +static int __init _of_unittest_apply_overlay_check(int overlay_nr,
> int unittest_nr, int before, int after,
> enum overlay_type ovtype)
> {
> @@ -2133,6 +2133,16 @@ static int __init of_unittest_apply_overlay_check(int overlay_nr,
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> + return ovcs_id;
> +}
> +
> +static int __init of_unittest_apply_overlay_check(int overlay_nr,
> + int unittest_nr, int before, int after,
> + enum overlay_type ovtype)
> +{
> + int ovcs_id = _of_unittest_apply_overlay_check(overlay_nr, unittest_nr, before, after, ovtype);
> + if (ovcs_id < 0)
> + return ovcs_id;
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -2143,31 +2153,9 @@ static int __init of_unittest_apply_revert_overlay_check(int overlay_nr,
> {
> int ret, ovcs_id, save_ovcs_id;
>
> - /* unittest device must be in before state */
> - if (of_unittest_device_exists(unittest_nr, ovtype) != before) {
> - unittest(0, "%s with device @\"%s\" %s\n",
> - overlay_name_from_nr(overlay_nr),
> - unittest_path(unittest_nr, ovtype),
> - !before ? "enabled" : "disabled");
> - return -EINVAL;
> - }
> -
> - /* apply the overlay */
> - ovcs_id = 0;
> - ret = of_unittest_apply_overlay(overlay_nr, &ovcs_id);
> - if (ret != 0) {
> - /* of_unittest_apply_overlay already called unittest() */
> - return ret;
> - }
> -
> - /* unittest device must be in after state */
> - if (of_unittest_device_exists(unittest_nr, ovtype) != after) {
> - unittest(0, "%s failed to create @\"%s\" %s\n",
> - overlay_name_from_nr(overlay_nr),
> - unittest_path(unittest_nr, ovtype),
> - !after ? "enabled" : "disabled");
> - return -EINVAL;
> - }
> + ovcs_id = _of_unittest_apply_overlay_check(overlay_nr, unittest_nr, before, after, ovtype);
> + if (ovcs_id < 0)
> + return ovcs_id;
>
> save_ovcs_id = ovcs_id;
> ret = of_overlay_remove(&ovcs_id);
That's what I had done first, before I realized I could reduce it by
five more lines of code ;-)
mine: 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
yours: 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
Anyway, you're the maintainer, so I can update my patch if you insist...
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
