Re: [PATCH v2 04/20] pinctrl: starfive: Use scope based of_node_put() cleanups

[Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@xxxxxx>]

> Use scope based of_node_put() cleanup to simplify code.

I see opportunities to improve affected function implementations another bit.


…
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/starfive/pinctrl-starfive-jh7100.c
…
> @@ -543,18 +540,18 @@ static int starfive_dt_node_to_map(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
>  			pins = devm_kcalloc(dev, npins, sizeof(*pins), GFP_KERNEL);
>  			if (!pins) {
>  				ret = -ENOMEM;
> -				goto put_child;
> +				goto free_map;
>  			}
>
>  			pinmux = devm_kcalloc(dev, npins, sizeof(*pinmux), GFP_KERNEL);
>  			if (!pinmux) {
>  				ret = -ENOMEM;
> -				goto put_child;
> +				goto free_map;
>  			}
…
> @@ -623,8 +620,6 @@ static int starfive_dt_node_to_map(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
>  	mutex_unlock(&sfp->mutex);
>  	return 0;
>
> -put_child:
> -	of_node_put(child);
>  free_map:
>  	pinctrl_utils_free_map(pctldev, map, nmaps);
>  	mutex_unlock(&sfp->mutex);
…
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/starfive/pinctrl-starfive-jh7110.c
…
> @@ -175,18 +175,18 @@ static int jh7110_dt_node_to_map(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
>  		pins = devm_kcalloc(dev, npins, sizeof(*pins), GFP_KERNEL);
>  		if (!pins) {
>  			ret = -ENOMEM;
> -			goto put_child;
> +			goto free_map;
>  		}
>
>  		pinmux = devm_kcalloc(dev, npins, sizeof(*pinmux), GFP_KERNEL);
>  		if (!pinmux) {
>  			ret = -ENOMEM;
> -			goto put_child;
> +			goto free_map;
>  		}
…
> @@ -233,8 +233,6 @@ static int jh7110_dt_node_to_map(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
>  	*num_maps = nmaps;
>  	return 0;
>
> -put_child:
> -	of_node_put(child);
>  free_map:
>  	pinctrl_utils_free_map(pctldev, map, nmaps);
>  	mutex_unlock(&sfp->mutex);


1. Exception handling is repeated a few times also according to memory allocation failures.
   How do you think about to use a corresponding label like “e_nomem”
   so that another bit of duplicate source code can be avoided?
   https://wiki.sei.cmu.edu/confluence/display/c/MEM12-C.+Consider+using+a+goto+chain+when+leaving+a+function+on+error+when+using+and+releasing+resources

2. Will development interests grow for the usage of a statement like “guard(mutex)(&sfp->mutex);”?


Regards,
Markus