On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 12:38:35PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 8:26 PM Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 04:43:52PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 6:56 PM Andy Shevchenko > > > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 05:38:05PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: ... > > > > > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) > > > > > > > > Do we really need this? > > > > > > What's the point of going through devres_* stuff if we already know > > > _of_regulator_get() is going to fail anyway? > > > > With devm_add_action*() this will be other way around and there are plenty of > > APIs done this way. The ifdeffery is simply ugly in the code. > > It's still extra code that doesn't get compiled out. Are you sure? In case of the stub the compiler should go with a "dead code elimination" optimisation and get rid of most of it (yes, I admit that it might be the overhead for the exporting a function which returns a constant). > > > Also, _of_regulator_get() does not have a stub version for !CONFIG_OF. > > > > So, what prevents us from adding it? > > Because there's no need if the only internal user isn't using it. > > I could also move them over to of_regulator.c. > > _of_regulator_get() stays internal to that file, and devm_regulator_release() > gets exposed instead. > > Does that sound better? This sounds good to me! ... > > > > > +static inline struct regulator *__must_check devm_of_regulator_get_optional(struct device *dev, > > > > > + struct device_node *node, > > > > > + const char *id) > > > > > > > > I don't know the conventions here, but I find better to have it as > > > > > > > > static inline __must_check struct regulator * > > > > devm_of_regulator_get_optional(struct device *dev, struct device_node *node, const char *id) > > > > > > > > Similar to other stubs and declarations. > > > > > > I don't think there are any conventions. This file already has three types: > > > > > > 1. Wrap the line with the function name on the second line > > > 2. Wrap the arguments; wrapped arguments aligned to the left parenthesis. > > > 3. Wrap the arguments; wrapped arguments aligned with aribtrary number of > > > tabs. > > > > > > I prefer the way I have put them. > > > > The way you put it despite relaxed limit is slightly harder to read. > > I don't remember many headers that do so-o indented parameters. Besides > > your way defers the burden of resplit to the future in case one more parameter > > needs to be added which will excess the 100 limit. > > > > Also __must_check is somehow misplaced in my opinion (talking from my > > experience and this can be simply checked by grepping other headers). > > Seems correct to me. It's between the return type and the function name. > From the coding style doc: > > __init void * __must_check action(enum magic value, size_t size, u8 count, > char *fmt, ...) __printf(4, 5) __malloc; > > The preferred order of elements for a function prototype is: > > - storage class (below, ``static __always_inline``, noting that > ``__always_inline`` > is technically an attribute but is treated like ``inline``) > - storage class attributes (here, ``__init`` -- i.e. section > declarations, but also > things like ``__cold``) > - return type (here, ``void *``) > - return type attributes (here, ``__must_check``) > - function name (here, ``action``) > - function parameters (here, ``(enum magic value, size_t size, u8 > count, char *fmt, ...)``, > noting that parameter names should always be included) > - function parameter attributes (here, ``__printf(4, 5)``) > - function behavior attributes (here, ``__malloc``) > > > That said, I prefer the way I suggested or something alike. > > Two people arguing over style that is not clearly specified in the coding > style doc is probably wasting time. I'll use what `clang-format` gave: > > static inline struct regulator *__must_check of_regulator_get_optional( > struct device *dev, struct device_node *node, const char *id) > static inline struct regulator *__must_check devm_of_regulator_get_optional( > struct device *dev, struct device_node *node, const char *id) With all my hatred towards this clang-format "feature", i.e. open ended parenthesis, this looks better than your original variant. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
