On 11.06.2022 20:54, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 11:32:04 +0300 > Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Simplify a bit the code in at91_adc_read_info_raw() by reducing the >> number of lines of code. >> >> Signed-off-by: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > I'm not convinced this is worth while, but there are some lesser > steps visible in this patch that probably are. > > Given your earlier reorg to move at01_adc_adjust_val_osr() under the locks, > you can now move the locks to the caller, thus not needing to handle them > separately in all the exit paths. OK, I'll give it a try. With this, would you prefer to still keep this patch? > >> --- >> drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c | 35 +++++++++--------------------- >> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c >> index b52f1020feaf..fbb98e216e70 100644 >> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c >> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/at91-sama5d2_adc.c >> @@ -1576,6 +1576,7 @@ static int at91_adc_read_info_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, >> struct iio_chan_spec const *chan, int *val) >> { >> struct at91_adc_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev); >> + int (*fn)(struct at91_adc_state *, int, u16 *) = NULL; >> u16 tmp_val; >> int ret; >> >> @@ -1583,29 +1584,18 @@ static int at91_adc_read_info_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, >> * Keep in mind that we cannot use software trigger or touchscreen >> * if external trigger is enabled >> */ >> - if (chan->type == IIO_POSITIONRELATIVE) { >> - ret = iio_device_claim_direct_mode(indio_dev); >> - if (ret) >> - return ret; > > You can drop this out of the if statements as it happens in all paths. > Or even better, move it to the caller.. > >> - mutex_lock(&st->lock); >> - >> - ret = at91_adc_read_position(st, chan->channel, >> - &tmp_val); > > huh? ret not checked? Yep, this should have been missed... > >> - *val = tmp_val; >> - ret = at91_adc_adjust_val_osr(st, val); > Sure this is duplicated, but meh it's only a few lines. > > >> - mutex_unlock(&st->lock); >> - iio_device_release_direct_mode(indio_dev); > > this early release (compared to the long path) is the only bit really > gets duplicated in all paths.. > >> + if (chan->type == IIO_POSITIONRELATIVE) >> + fn = at91_adc_read_position; >> + if (chan->type == IIO_PRESSURE) >> + fn = at91_adc_read_pressure; >> >> + ret = iio_device_claim_direct_mode(indio_dev); >> + if (ret) >> return ret; >> - } >> - if (chan->type == IIO_PRESSURE) { > this should always have been an else if () as the chan->type couldn't be both. > >> - ret = iio_device_claim_direct_mode(indio_dev); >> - if (ret) >> - return ret; >> - mutex_lock(&st->lock); > hence this lot can be shared with the above. To be sure of what I've understood correctly: in the end you prefer to have a patch with the point you suggested rather then the initial patch? Thank you, Claudiu Beznea > >> + mutex_lock(&st->lock); >> >> - ret = at91_adc_read_pressure(st, chan->channel, >> - &tmp_val); >> + if (fn) { >> + ret = fn(st, chan->channel, &tmp_val); >> *val = tmp_val; >> ret = at91_adc_adjust_val_osr(st, val); >> mutex_unlock(&st->lock); >> @@ -1616,11 +1606,6 @@ static int at91_adc_read_info_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, >> >> /* in this case we have a voltage channel */ >> >> - ret = iio_device_claim_direct_mode(indio_dev); >> - if (ret) >> - return ret; >> - mutex_lock(&st->lock); >> - >> st->chan = chan; >> >> at91_adc_cor(st, chan); >