06.09.2020 01:51, Michał Mirosław пишет: > On Sun, Sep 06, 2020 at 01:24:14AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >> 06.09.2020 01:10, Michał Mirosław пишет: >>> On Sat, Sep 05, 2020 at 11:41:31PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >>>> Factor out runtime PM and hardware initialization into separate function >>>> in order have a cleaner error unwinding in the probe function. >>> [...] >>>> + ret = tegra_i2c_init_runtime_pm_and_hardware(i2c_dev); >>> [...] >>> >>> This one doesn't improve the code for me. The problems are: 1) putting two >>> unrelated parts in one function, 2) silently reordered initialization. >> >> The hardware initialization depends on the resumed RPM and the rest of >> the probe function doesn't care about the RPM. I don't quite understand >> why you're saying that they are unrelated, could you please explain? >> >> The DMA/RPM initialization is intentionally reordered in order to clean >> up the error handling, like the commit message says. To me it's a clear >> improvement :) > > Ok, then wouldn't it be enough to just move this part in the probe()? > A sign of a problem for me is how much information you had to put in > the name of the new function. Looking at it again now, I think you're right. I also now noticed that the RPM isn't disabled now if tegra_i2c_init() fails. I'll try to take another look, but probably will lean to yours variant in the v5. Thanks!
