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.
Thanks,
Guenter
- if (ret == 2) {
- hw_margin_max = hw_margin[1];
- hw_margin_min = hw_margin[0];
+ if (count == 1)
+ hw_margin_max = hw_margin[0];
+
+ if (count == 2) {
+ hw_margin_max = hw_margin[1];
+ hw_margin_min = hw_margin[0];
+ }
}
