Re: [PATCH v1 10/11] watchdog: bd9576_wdt: switch to using devm_fwnode_gpiod_get()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 9/5/22 08:21, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
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)
   ...


The old code has either 1 or two checks if there is no error.
Your suggested code has always two checks. I don't see how that
is an improvement.

-       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.


We know that count is either 1 or 2 here, so strictly speaking
	if (count == 1) {
	} else {
	}
would be sufficient. On the other side, that depends on ARRAY_SIZE() being
exactly 2, so
	if (count == 1) {
	} else if (count == 2) {
	}
would also make sense. Either way is fine with me. I'll leave it up
to Dmitry to decide what he wants to do.

Thanks,
Guenter

-       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];
+               }
          }





[Index of Archives]     [Linux DRI Users]     [Linux Intel Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux