For the function of platform_get_irq(), the example in platform.c is
* int irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
* if (irq < 0)
* return irq;
So the return value of zero is unnecessary to check. And move it
up to a little bit can simplify the code jump.
Co-developed-by: Zhang Shengju <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Zhang Shengju <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Tang Bin <[email protected]>
---
drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c | 12 ++++--------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c b/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
index 8cb51cf7a..d28976f21 100644
--- a/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
+++ b/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
@@ -320,6 +320,10 @@ static int mx25_gcq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
if (ret)
return ret;
+ priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
+ if (priv->irq < 0)
+ return priv->irq;
+
for (i = 0; i != 4; ++i) {
if (!priv->vref[i])
continue;
@@ -336,14 +340,6 @@ static int mx25_gcq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
goto err_vref_disable;
}
- priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
- if (priv->irq <= 0) {
- ret = priv->irq;
- if (!ret)
- ret = -ENXIO;
- goto err_clk_unprepare;
- }
-
ret = request_irq(priv->irq, mx25_gcq_irq, 0, pdev->name, priv);
if (ret) {
dev_err(dev, "Failed requesting IRQ\n");
--
2.20.1.windows.1
On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 20:52:09 +0800
Tang Bin <[email protected]> wrote:
> For the function of platform_get_irq(), the example in platform.c is
> * int irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> * if (irq < 0)
> * return irq;
> So the return value of zero is unnecessary to check. And move it
> up to a little bit can simplify the code jump.
>
> Co-developed-by: Zhang Shengju <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Shengju <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Tang Bin <[email protected]>
Hi,
Logically it is better to keep the irq handling all together, so
I would prefer we didn't move it.
Also, platform_get_irq() is documented as never returning 0, so the current
code is not incorrect. As such, this looks like noise unless there is
some plan to make use of the 0 return value? What benefit do we get from
this change?
Thanks,
Jonathan
> ---
> drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c | 12 ++++--------
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c b/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
> index 8cb51cf7a..d28976f21 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
> @@ -320,6 +320,10 @@ static int mx25_gcq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> + priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> + if (priv->irq < 0)
> + return priv->irq;
> +
> for (i = 0; i != 4; ++i) {
> if (!priv->vref[i])
> continue;
> @@ -336,14 +340,6 @@ static int mx25_gcq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> goto err_vref_disable;
> }
>
> - priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> - if (priv->irq <= 0) {
> - ret = priv->irq;
> - if (!ret)
> - ret = -ENXIO;
> - goto err_clk_unprepare;
> - }
> -
> ret = request_irq(priv->irq, mx25_gcq_irq, 0, pdev->name, priv);
> if (ret) {
> dev_err(dev, "Failed requesting IRQ\n");
Hi Jonathan:
On 2021/8/1 0:45, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 20:52:09 +0800
> Tang Bin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> For the function of platform_get_irq(), the example in platform.c is
>> * int irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>> * if (irq < 0)
>> * return irq;
>> So the return value of zero is unnecessary to check. And move it
>> up to a little bit can simplify the code jump.
>>
>> Co-developed-by: Zhang Shengju <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhang Shengju <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Tang Bin <[email protected]>
> Hi,
>
> Logically it is better to keep the irq handling all together, so
> I would prefer we didn't move it.
Got it in this place.
>
> Also, platform_get_irq() is documented as never returning 0, so the current
> code is not incorrect. As such, this looks like noise unless there is
> some plan to make use of the 0 return value? What benefit do we get from
> this change?
Thanks for your reply, I think the benefit of this change maybe just
simplify the code.
Because the return value is never equal to 0, so the check in here is
redundant.
We can make the patch like this:
>> ---
>> drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c | 12 ++++--------
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c b/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
>> index 8cb51cf7a..d28976f21 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
>> @@ -320,6 +320,10 @@ static int mx25_gcq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> if (ret)
>> return ret;
>>
>> + priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>> + if (priv->irq < 0)
>> + return priv->irq;
>> +
>> for (i = 0; i != 4; ++i) {
>> if (!priv->vref[i])
>> continue;
>> @@ -336,14 +340,6 @@ static int mx25_gcq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> goto err_vref_disable;
>> }
>>
>> - priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>> - if (priv->irq <= 0) {
>> - ret = priv->irq;
>> - if (!ret)
>> - ret = -ENXIO;
>> - goto err_clk_unprepare;
>> - }
>> -
priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
if (priv->irq < 0) {
ret = priv->irq;
goto err_clk_unprepare;
}
If you think this is ok, I will send V2 for you. If you think these
change is meaningless,
just dropped this.
Thanks
Tang Bin
On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 10:31:58 +0800
tangbin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Jonathan:
>
> On 2021/8/1 0:45, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 20:52:09 +0800
> > Tang Bin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> For the function of platform_get_irq(), the example in platform.c is
> >> * int irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> >> * if (irq < 0)
> >> * return irq;
> >> So the return value of zero is unnecessary to check. And move it
> >> up to a little bit can simplify the code jump.
> >>
> >> Co-developed-by: Zhang Shengju <[email protected]>
> >> Signed-off-by: Zhang Shengju <[email protected]>
> >> Signed-off-by: Tang Bin <[email protected]>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Logically it is better to keep the irq handling all together, so
> > I would prefer we didn't move it.
> Got it in this place.
> >
> > Also, platform_get_irq() is documented as never returning 0, so the current
> > code is not incorrect. As such, this looks like noise unless there is
> > some plan to make use of the 0 return value? What benefit do we get from
> > this change?
>
> Thanks for your reply, I think the benefit of this change maybe just
> simplify the code.
>
> Because the return value is never equal to 0, so the check in here is
> redundant.
>
> We can make the patch like this:
>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c | 12 ++++--------
> >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c b/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
> >> index 8cb51cf7a..d28976f21 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
> >> @@ -320,6 +320,10 @@ static int mx25_gcq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >> if (ret)
> >> return ret;
> >>
> >> + priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> >> + if (priv->irq < 0)
> >> + return priv->irq;
> >> +
> >> for (i = 0; i != 4; ++i) {
> >> if (!priv->vref[i])
> >> continue;
> >> @@ -336,14 +340,6 @@ static int mx25_gcq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >> goto err_vref_disable;
> >> }
> >>
> >> - priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> >> - if (priv->irq <= 0) {
> >> - ret = priv->irq;
> >> - if (!ret)
> >> - ret = -ENXIO;
> >> - goto err_clk_unprepare;
> >> - }
> >> -
>
> priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> if (priv->irq < 0) {
> ret = priv->irq;
> goto err_clk_unprepare;
> }
>
> ??? If you think this is ok, I will send V2 for you. If you think these
> change is meaningless,
OK, it's a minor tidy up, so lets go with that, or perhaps this is even tidier?
Assuming types of ret and irq are appropriate (I've not checked!)
ret = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
if (ret)
goto err_clk_unprepare;
priv->irq = ret;
>
> just dropped this.
>
> Thanks
>
> Tang Bin
>
>
>
>
Hi Jonathan:
On 2021/8/2 18:16, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 10:31:58 +0800
> tangbin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jonathan:
>>
>> On 2021/8/1 0:45, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 20:52:09 +0800
>>> Tang Bin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For the function of platform_get_irq(), the example in platform.c is
>>>> * int irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>>>> * if (irq < 0)
>>>> * return irq;
>>>> So the return value of zero is unnecessary to check. And move it
>>>> up to a little bit can simplify the code jump.
>>>>
>>>> Co-developed-by: Zhang Shengju <[email protected]>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhang Shengju <[email protected]>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tang Bin <[email protected]>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Logically it is better to keep the irq handling all together, so
>>> I would prefer we didn't move it.
>> Got it in this place.
>>> Also, platform_get_irq() is documented as never returning 0, so the current
>>> code is not incorrect. As such, this looks like noise unless there is
>>> some plan to make use of the 0 return value? What benefit do we get from
>>> this change?
>> Thanks for your reply, I think the benefit of this change maybe just
>> simplify the code.
>>
>> Because the return value is never equal to 0, so the check in here is
>> redundant.
>>
>> We can make the patch like this:
>>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c | 12 ++++--------
>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c b/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
>>>> index 8cb51cf7a..d28976f21 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
>>>> @@ -320,6 +320,10 @@ static int mx25_gcq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> if (ret)
>>>> return ret;
>>>>
>>>> + priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>>>> + if (priv->irq < 0)
>>>> + return priv->irq;
>>>> +
>>>> for (i = 0; i != 4; ++i) {
>>>> if (!priv->vref[i])
>>>> continue;
>>>> @@ -336,14 +340,6 @@ static int mx25_gcq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> goto err_vref_disable;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> - priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>>>> - if (priv->irq <= 0) {
>>>> - ret = priv->irq;
>>>> - if (!ret)
>>>> - ret = -ENXIO;
>>>> - goto err_clk_unprepare;
>>>> - }
>>>> -
>> priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>> if (priv->irq < 0) {
>> ret = priv->irq;
>> goto err_clk_unprepare;
>> }
>>
>> If you think this is ok, I will send V2 for you. If you think these
>> change is meaningless,
> OK, it's a minor tidy up, so lets go with that, or perhaps this is even tidier?
> Assuming types of ret and irq are appropriate (I've not checked!)
>
>
> ret = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> if (ret)
> goto err_clk_unprepare;
>
> priv->irq = ret;
>
Thanks for your reply, ret or irq or priv->irq are all appropriate, and
the changes of mine maybe traditional.
I will send v2 for you like your changes.
Thank you very much.
Tang Bin
>> just dropped this.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Tang Bin
>>
>>
>>
>>