On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 08:49:58AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 9/5/22 08:21, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 6:13 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On 9/5/22 04:09, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 9:33 AM Dmitry Torokhov
> > > > <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > > > + count = device_property_count_u32(dev->parent, "rohm,hw-timeout-ms");
> > > > > + if (count < 0 && count != -EINVAL)
> > > > > + return count;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (count > 0) {
> > > >
> > > > > + if (count > ARRAY_SIZE(hw_margin))
> > > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > >
> > > > Why double check? You may move it out of the (count > 0).
> >
> > > Two checks will always be needed, so I don't entirely see
> > > how that would be better.
> >
> > But not nested. That's my point:
> >
> > if (count > ARRAY_SIZE())
> > return ...
> > if (count > 0)
> > ...
> >
>
> The old code has either 1 or two checks if there is no error.
> Your suggested code has always two checks. I don't see how that
> is an improvement.
>
> > > > > - if (ret == 1)
> > > > > - hw_margin_max = hw_margin[0];
> > > >
> > > > > + ret = device_property_read_u32_array(dev->parent,
> > > > > + "rohm,hw-timeout-ms",
> > > > > + hw_margin, count);
> > > > > + if (ret < 0)
> > > > > + return ret;
> > > >
> > > > So, only this needs the count > 0 check since below already has it implicitly.
> > > >
> > > Sorry, I don't understand this comment.
> >
> > if (count > 0) {
> > ret = device_property_read_u32_array(...);
> > ...
> > }
> > if (count == 1)
> > ...
> > if (count == 2)
> > ...
> >
> > But here it might be better to have the nested conditionals.
> >
>
> We know that count is either 1 or 2 here, so strictly speaking
> if (count == 1) {
> } else {
> }
> would be sufficient. On the other side, that depends on ARRAY_SIZE() being
> exactly 2, so
> if (count == 1) {
> } else if (count == 2) {
> }
> would also make sense. Either way is fine with me. I'll leave it up
> to Dmitry to decide what he wants to do.
My goal is to drop usage of devm_gpiod_get_from_of_node(), beyond that I
do not have strong preferences either way really. It is probing code, so
performance is not critical, but I'm obviously satisfied with how the
code looks now, or I would not have sent it.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
