Hi,
On Tue, 2019-12-10 at 13:20 +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch contains the clean-up code related to 'goto' style.
> Please merge the the clean-up code of 'goto' to one patch with patch3/patch4.
> - patch3 related to 'goto' clean-up code
> - patch4 related to remaining clean-up code.
>
> And I added the comment below. Please check them.
OK, I can merge these patches. Please also see my comments below regarding
the issues you highlighted: kzalloc vs. kcalloc, fitting in 80 columns and
changing repeated expressions to variables.
>
> On 12/9/19 7:49 PM, Artur Świgoń wrote:
> > This patch adds minor improvements to the exynos-bus driver, including
> > cleaning up header includes, variables, and return paths.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Artur Świgoń <a.swigon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/devfreq/exynos-bus.c | 56 +++++++++++++++---------------------
> > 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/devfreq/exynos-bus.c b/drivers/devfreq/exynos-bus.c
> > index 0b557df63666..3eb6a043284a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/devfreq/exynos-bus.c
> > +++ b/drivers/devfreq/exynos-bus.c
> > @@ -15,11 +15,10 @@
> > #include <linux/device.h>
> > #include <linux/export.h>
> > #include <linux/module.h>
> > -#include <linux/of_device.h>
> > +#include <linux/of.h>
> > #include <linux/pm_opp.h>
> > #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> > #include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
> > -#include <linux/slab.h>
> >
> > #define DEFAULT_SATURATION_RATIO 40
> >
> > @@ -178,7 +177,7 @@ static int exynos_bus_parent_parse_of(struct device_node *np,
> > struct device *dev = bus->dev;
> > struct opp_table *opp_table;
> > const char *vdd = "vdd";
> > - int i, ret, count, size;
> > + int i, ret, count;
> >
> > opp_table = dev_pm_opp_set_regulators(dev, &vdd, 1);
> > if (IS_ERR(opp_table)) {
> > @@ -201,8 +200,7 @@ static int exynos_bus_parent_parse_of(struct device_node *np,
> > }
> > bus->edev_count = count;
> >
> > - size = sizeof(*bus->edev) * count;
> > - bus->edev = devm_kzalloc(dev, size, GFP_KERNEL);
> > + bus->edev = devm_kcalloc(dev, count, sizeof(*bus->edev), GFP_KERNEL);
>
> ditto.
> It depends on personal style. Don't change it because we cannot
> modify them at the all device driver. If is not wrong,
> just keep the original code.
Of course, this is a matter of style, but I think that Coccinelle reports
such code, compare with e.g., https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/8/927
Anyway, I can drop it since the purpose of this patchset as a whole was to
untangle all the goto's and I agree this is kind of unrelated.
>
> > if (!bus->edev) {
> > ret = -ENOMEM;
> > goto err_regulator;
> > @@ -301,10 +299,9 @@ static int exynos_bus_profile_init(struct exynos_bus *bus,
> > profile->exit = exynos_bus_exit;
> >
> > ondemand_data = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*ondemand_data), GFP_KERNEL);
> > - if (!ondemand_data) {
> > - ret = -ENOMEM;
> > - goto err;
> > - }
> > + if (!ondemand_data)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > ondemand_data->upthreshold = 40;
> > ondemand_data->downdifferential = 5;
> >
> > @@ -314,15 +311,14 @@ static int exynos_bus_profile_init(struct exynos_bus *bus,
> > ondemand_data);
> > if (IS_ERR(bus->devfreq)) {
> > dev_err(dev, "failed to add devfreq device\n");
> > - ret = PTR_ERR(bus->devfreq);
> > - goto err;
> > + return PTR_ERR(bus->devfreq);
> > }
> >
> > /* Register opp_notifier to catch the change of OPP */
> > ret = devm_devfreq_register_opp_notifier(dev, bus->devfreq);
> > if (ret < 0) {
> > dev_err(dev, "failed to register opp notifier\n");
> > - goto err;
> > + return ret;
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -332,17 +328,16 @@ static int exynos_bus_profile_init(struct exynos_bus *bus,
> > ret = exynos_bus_enable_edev(bus);
> > if (ret < 0) {
> > dev_err(dev, "failed to enable devfreq-event devices\n");
> > - goto err;
> > + return ret;
> > }
> >
> > ret = exynos_bus_set_event(bus);
> > if (ret < 0) {
> > dev_err(dev, "failed to set event to devfreq-event devices\n");
> > - goto err;
> > + return ret;
> > }
> >
> > -err:
> > - return ret;
> > + return 0;
> > }
> >
> > static int exynos_bus_profile_init_passive(struct exynos_bus *bus,
> > @@ -351,7 +346,6 @@ static int exynos_bus_profile_init_passive(struct exynos_bus *bus,
> > struct device *dev = bus->dev;
> > struct devfreq_passive_data *passive_data;
> > struct devfreq *parent_devfreq;
> > - int ret = 0;
> >
> > /* Initialize the struct profile and governor data for passive device */
> > profile->target = exynos_bus_target;
> > @@ -359,30 +353,26 @@ static int exynos_bus_profile_init_passive(struct exynos_bus *bus,
> >
> > /* Get the instance of parent devfreq device */
> > parent_devfreq = devfreq_get_devfreq_by_phandle(dev, 0);
> > - if (IS_ERR(parent_devfreq)) {
> > - ret = -EPROBE_DEFER;
> > - goto err;
> > - }
> > + if (IS_ERR(parent_devfreq))
> > + return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> >
> > passive_data = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*passive_data), GFP_KERNEL);
> > - if (!passive_data) {
> > - ret = -ENOMEM;
> > - goto err;
> > - }
> > + if (!passive_data)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > passive_data->parent = parent_devfreq;
> >
> > /* Add devfreq device for exynos bus with passive governor */
> > - bus->devfreq = devm_devfreq_add_device(dev, profile, DEVFREQ_GOV_PASSIVE,
> > + bus->devfreq = devm_devfreq_add_device(dev, profile,
> > + DEVFREQ_GOV_PASSIVE,
>
> It is not clean-up. It depends on personal style. Don't change it
> because we cannot modify them at the all device driver. If is not wrong,
> just keep the original code.
I wanted to make the code fit in 80 columns (issue reported by
scripts/checkpatch.pl). For the reasons stated in my previous comment,
I am happy to drop this change if you don't like it.
>
> > passive_data);
> > if (IS_ERR(bus->devfreq)) {
> > dev_err(dev,
> > "failed to add devfreq dev with passive governor\n");
> > - ret = PTR_ERR(bus->devfreq);
> > - goto err;
> > + return PTR_ERR(bus->devfreq);
> > }
> >
> > -err:
> > - return ret;
> > + return 0;
> > }
> >
> > static int exynos_bus_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > @@ -400,18 +390,18 @@ static int exynos_bus_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> >
> > - bus = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*bus), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + bus = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*bus), GFP_KERNEL);
>
> ditto.
> It depends on personal style. Don't change it because we cannot
> modify them at the all device driver. If is not wrong,
> just keep the original code.
Please note that there exists this variable in exynos_bus_probe():
struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
but the expression '&pdev->dev' is reused twice more ('dev' itself
is also used). Is there any reason for such inconsistency?
>
> > if (!bus)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> > mutex_init(&bus->lock);
> > - bus->dev = &pdev->dev;
> > + bus->dev = dev;
>
> ditto.
> It depends on personal style. Don't change it because we cannot
> modify them at the all device driver. If is not wrong,
> just keep the original code.
(See above)
>
> > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, bus);
> >
> > profile = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*profile), GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (!profile)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > - node = of_parse_phandle(dev->of_node, "devfreq", 0);
> > + node = of_parse_phandle(np, "devfreq", 0);
> > if (node) {
> > of_node_put(node);
> > passive = true;
> >
>
Best regards,
--
Artur Świgoń
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
