Hopefully it makes the code look nicer and makes it easier to extend
this function.
Suggested-by: Grant Likely <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov <[email protected]>
---
On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 10:16:44AM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
[...]
> Rather than doing an else block which will need to be reworked if/when
> any additional code is added to the bottom of this routine, please
> rework the if() block to bail on failure instead of implicitly falling
> through to the return statement.
Here it is.
Andrew,
Please either fold this patch into
gpiolib-introduce-chip-addition-removal-notifier.patch
or, actually these changes can stay in its own patch for better
sparation of cosmitc/real changes.
Thanks!
drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 24 +++++++++++++++---------
1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
index 375c03a..f227c1f 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
@@ -1099,17 +1099,23 @@ int gpiochip_add(struct gpio_chip *chip)
unlock:
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio_lock, flags);
- if (status == 0)
- status = gpiochip_export(chip);
+
+ if (status)
+ goto fail;
+
+ status = gpiochip_export(chip);
+ if (status)
+ goto fail;
+
+ blocking_notifier_call_chain(&gpio_notifier, GPIO_NOTIFY_CHIP_ADDED,
+ chip);
+
+ return 0;
fail:
/* failures here can mean systems won't boot... */
- if (status)
- pr_err("gpiochip_add: gpios %d..%d (%s) not registered\n",
- chip->base, chip->base + chip->ngpio - 1,
- chip->label ? : "generic");
- else
- blocking_notifier_call_chain(&gpio_notifier,
- GPIO_NOTIFY_CHIP_ADDED, chip);
+ pr_err("gpiochip_add: gpios %d..%d (%s) not registered\n",
+ chip->base, chip->base + chip->ngpio - 1,
+ chip->label ? : "generic");
return status;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(gpiochip_add);
--
1.6.5.7