On 27/08/2024 11:59, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> 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.
I will take a look, but as you already pointed out it is a bit further
from trivial functionally-equivalent cleanup. I might mess with the locks.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
