On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 14:51:06 +0200
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Simplify error handling (smaller error handling) over locks with
> guard().
>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
Musing inline.
LGTM
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/pmdomain/rockchip/pm-domains.c | 5 +----
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pmdomain/rockchip/pm-domains.c b/drivers/pmdomain/rockchip/pm-domains.c
> index 5679ad336a11..538dde58d924 100644
> --- a/drivers/pmdomain/rockchip/pm-domains.c
> +++ b/drivers/pmdomain/rockchip/pm-domains.c
> @@ -910,7 +910,7 @@ static int rockchip_pm_domain_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> * Prevent any rockchip_pmu_block() from racing with the remainder of
> * setup (clocks, register initialization).
> */
> - mutex_lock(&dmc_pmu_mutex);
> + guard(mutex)(&dmc_pmu_mutex);
>
> for_each_available_child_of_node_scoped(np, node) {
> error = rockchip_pm_add_one_domain(pmu, node);
> @@ -943,13 +943,10 @@ static int rockchip_pm_domain_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> if (!WARN_ON_ONCE(dmc_pmu))
> dmc_pmu = pmu;
>
> - mutex_unlock(&dmc_pmu_mutex);
> -
> return 0;
>
> err_out:
> rockchip_pm_domain_cleanup(pmu);
I wonder. Could you use a devm_add_action_or_reset for this and allow early
returns throughout?
Would need to take the lock again perhaps and I haven't checked if there
is any issue in dropping and retaking the mutex however.
The block logic is non obvious so I couldn't quickly figure this out.
> - mutex_unlock(&dmc_pmu_mutex);
> return error;
> }
>
>
