Hi Kieran,
slightly unrelated on this patch but
On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 01:11:52PM +0100, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> - Fix up cleanup path from GPIO PowerDown registration
> ---
> drivers/media/i2c/max9286.c | 14 ++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/max9286.c b/drivers/media/i2c/max9286.c
> index 0a43137b8112..cc99740b34c5 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/i2c/max9286.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/max9286.c
> @@ -1171,8 +1171,10 @@ static int max9286_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
>
> priv->gpiod_pwdn = devm_gpiod_get_optional(&client->dev, "enable",
> GPIOD_OUT_HIGH);
> - if (IS_ERR(priv->gpiod_pwdn))
> - return PTR_ERR(priv->gpiod_pwdn);
> + if (IS_ERR(priv->gpiod_pwdn)) {
> + ret = PTR_ERR(priv->gpiod_pwdn);
> + goto err_cleanup_dt;
> + }
>
> gpiod_set_consumer_name(priv->gpiod_pwdn, "max9286-pwdn");
> gpiod_set_value_cansleep(priv->gpiod_pwdn, 1);
As we get_optional(), shouldn't this be protected by an
if (priv->gpiod_pwdn)
?
Another point (sorry, I'm looking at gpio handling only now) we have
ret = max9286_gpio(priv);
if (ret)
return ret;
That's not really a descriptive function name.. Could this be
max9286_register_gpiochip()
?
One last point and then I'll stop.
We currently do
probe() {
parse_dt()
pwdn = devm_get_gpio_optional()
if (err)
goto err_cleanup_dt()
set(pwdn, 1);
register_gpiochip(); //uses devm
goto err_cleanup_dt()
get_regulator()
goto err_cleanup_dt()
ret = init()
if (ret)
goto err_regulator();
return 0
err_regulator:
regulator_put()
mux_close()
i2c_ack_disable()
err_cleanup_dt:
cleanup_dt()
}
With patch 5 of this series this becomes
probe() {
parse_dt()
pwdn = devm_get_gpio_optional()
if (err)
goto err_cleanup_dt()
set(pwdn, 1);
register_gpiochip(); //uses devm
goto err_cleanup_dt()
devm_get_regulator()
goto err_cleanup_dt()
ret = init()
if (ret)
goto err_regulator();
return 0
err_regulator:
mux_close()
i2c_ack_disable()
err_cleanup_dt:
cleanup_dt()
}
as the i2c_mux is already closed at the end of init() (or never open
if we fail earlier) and i2c_ack can be disabled at the end of
max9286_setup() and in the error path there (as there are no more i2c
writes after that function returns), I think we could simplify all of
thise even more to:
probe() {
pwdn = devm_get_gpio_optional()
if (err)
return;
set(pwdn, 1);
register_gpiochip(); //uses devm
return;
devm_get_regulator()
return;
parse_dt()
ret = init()
if (ret)
goto cleanup_dt();
return 0
err_cleanup_dt:
cleanup_dt()
}
This could be done after 5/5 in this series if you want to keep fixups
separate for another review round.
What do you think ?
Thanks
j
> @@ -1193,7 +1195,7 @@ static int max9286_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
> PTR_ERR(priv->regulator));
> ret = PTR_ERR(priv->regulator);
> priv->regulator = NULL;
> - goto err_free;
> + goto err_cleanup_dt;
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -1230,7 +1232,7 @@ static int max9286_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
> regulator_put(priv->regulator);
> max9286_i2c_mux_close(priv);
> max9286_configure_i2c(priv, false);
> -err_free:
> +err_cleanup_dt:
> max9286_cleanup_dt(priv);
>
> return ret;
> @@ -1248,10 +1250,10 @@ static int max9286_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
> regulator_disable(priv->regulator);
> regulator_put(priv->regulator);
>
> - max9286_cleanup_dt(priv);
> -
> gpiod_set_value_cansleep(priv->gpiod_pwdn, 0);
>
> + max9286_cleanup_dt(priv);
> +
> return 0;
> }
>
> --
> 2.20.1
>
