On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 6:13 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 9/5/22 04:09, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 9:33 AM Dmitry Torokhov
> > <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
> >> + count = device_property_count_u32(dev->parent, "rohm,hw-timeout-ms");
> >> + if (count < 0 && count != -EINVAL)
> >> + return count;
> >> +
> >> + if (count > 0) {
> >
> >> + if (count > ARRAY_SIZE(hw_margin))
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >
> > Why double check? You may move it out of the (count > 0).
>
> Two checks will always be needed, so I don't entirely see
> how that would be better.
But not nested. That's my point:
if (count > ARRAY_SIZE())
return ...
if (count > 0)
...
> >> - if (ret == 1)
> >> - hw_margin_max = hw_margin[0];
> >
> >> + ret = device_property_read_u32_array(dev->parent,
> >> + "rohm,hw-timeout-ms",
> >> + hw_margin, count);
> >> + if (ret < 0)
> >> + return ret;
> >
> > So, only this needs the count > 0 check since below already has it implicitly.
> >
> Sorry, I don't understand this comment.
if (count > 0) {
ret = device_property_read_u32_array(...);
...
}
if (count == 1)
...
if (count == 2)
...
But here it might be better to have the nested conditionals.
> >> - if (ret == 2) {
> >> - hw_margin_max = hw_margin[1];
> >> - hw_margin_min = hw_margin[0];
> >> + if (count == 1)
> >> + hw_margin_max = hw_margin[0];
> >> +
> >> + if (count == 2) {
> >> + hw_margin_max = hw_margin[1];
> >> + hw_margin_min = hw_margin[0];
> >> + }
> >> }
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
