Am 2013-12-05 18:40, schrieb Stephen Warren:
> On 12/05/2013 10:43 AM, Stefan Agner wrote:
>> Am 2013-12-05 18:06, schrieb Stephen Warren:
>> <snip>
>>>> @@ -493,13 +527,12 @@ static int tps6586x_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>>>> return -EIO;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> - dev_info(&client->dev, "VERSIONCRC is %02x\n", ret);
>>>> -
>>>> tps6586x = devm_kzalloc(&client->dev, sizeof(*tps6586x), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> - if (tps6586x == NULL) {
>>>> - dev_err(&client->dev, "memory for tps6586x alloc failed\n");
>>>> + if (!tps6586x)
>>>> return -ENOMEM;
>>>> - }
>>>> +
>>>> + tps6586x->version = ret;
>>>
>>> I have to say, I dislike this version of the patch. Separating the
>>> reading of the version register from the assignment to tps6586x->version
>>> doesn't make any sense, especially given that the version value is
>>> stored in a variable named "ret"; that name isn't remotely related to
>>> what's stored there. What if someone comes along later and adds more
>>> code that assigns to ret between where it's repurposed for the version
>>> value and where it's assigned to tps6586x->version? It'd be extremely
>>> difficult for a patch reviewer to spot that given the limited context in
>>> a diff, and quite non-obvious to the person changing the code too..
>>
>> The value comes from the return value of i2c_smbus_read_byte_data. If
>> the value is below zero its an EIO error.
>>
>> I could add a variable "version", but for me it felt strange because we
>> check if version is below zero. This feels like its a wrong version
>> rather than a transmit error. So I would prefer ret over version. But I
>> agree, when one just reads the patch, its not obvious what exactly
>> happens.
>
> In my opinion, using a variable named "version" here would be
> preferable. Testing that against <0 is just the way the I2C API works,
> so the same argument could be applied to any I2C access.
Hm, I try the empiric way:
$ grep -r -e i2c_smbus_read_byte_data | grep "ret =" | wc -l
139
$ grep -r -e i2c_smbus_read_byte_data | grep "version =" | wc -l
3
Ok, thats not fair at all, version is usage specific whilst ret is not.
$ grep -r -e i2c_smbus_read_byte_data | grep " = " | wc -l
703
On the other hand is the additional variable. But I think the compiler
will optimize that anyway, so this might not be an argument at all :-)
I see your point... Should I create another patch revision? Lee, is the
patch already merged?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
