Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
From:   Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAD=FV=UAfF2rcqdJv30Vd6WXz1qciNVKj2aGq6YTO3+NLVE7yA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc:     alokc@codeaurora.org, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-spi <linux-spi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Girish Mahadevan <girishm@codeaurora.org>,
        Dilip Kota <dkota@codeaurora.org>
References: <1538574265-30235-1-git-send-email-alokc@codeaurora.org>
 <1538574265-30235-4-git-send-email-alokc@codeaurora.org>
 <153904219713.119890.7463642233895152532@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
 <CAD=FV=XnYucy4JmgATrB89RYHTbzRC_GaouaRjHAocD4-H0ncg@mail.gmail.com>
 <153910152600.119890.14820584405992384926@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
 <CAD=FV=U-ZZQhFKR9kxYnw=F1j+dExrsgFvjabYJ8AVmBDM4eXA@mail.gmail.com>
 <153911433511.119890.17831207059115471972@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
 <CAD=FV=UAfF2rcqdJv30Vd6WXz1qciNVKj2aGq6YTO3+NLVE7yA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <153913452169.119890.11450124419228013575@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
User-Agent: alot/0.7
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 3/3] spi: spi-geni-qcom: Add SPI driver support for GENI based
 QUP
Date:   Tue, 09 Oct 2018 18:22:01 -0700
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Quoting Doug Anderson (2018-10-09 14:18:26)
> Hi,
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 12:45 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Doug Anderson (2018-10-09 10:48:55)
> > >
> > > Ah, you're suggesting separating the platform_get_irq() and the
> > > request_irq() so that we call platform_get_irq() as the first thing in
> > > the function but don't do the request_irq() until later.  Yeah, that
> > > could be done and I guess if you feel strongly about it I wouldn't
> > > object to the change, but I don't feel it buys us a lot and I kind of
> > > like keeping the two next to each other.  Specifically why I don't
> > > think it buys us a lot:
> > >
> > > 1. You still need the "dev_err" print, right?  platform_get_irq()
> > > doesn't automatically print errors for you I think.
> >
> > I usually leave it out. Who cares? Maybe we should throw a dev_err()
> > into platform_get_irq() on failure so we can keep drivers cleaner and
> > reduce a bunch of "can't find my IRQ" messages throughout the kernel.
> =

> Yeah, all the boilerplate code is annoying.  ...of course by hoisting
> it up then you get a whole bunch of people that have "optional" IRQs
> suddenly getting error messages spewed which is also no good.  IMO the
> convention of Linux drivers I've always reviewed is to print errors
> like this, so unless that changes my vote is to follow convention.
> =

> =

> > > 2. You now need a local variable "irq".  By putting the
> > > platform_get_irq() before the memory allocation you now can't store it
> > > directly in mas->irq.  We could try using "ret" as a temporary
> > > variable but that seems worse in this case since it'd be a bit
> > > fragile.
> > >
> > > 3. You don't get rid of any error labels / error handling so we don't
> > > really save any code
> > >
> > > When I tried this my diffstat says 8 lines added and 7 removed, so a
> > > net increase in LOC FWIW.  I'm relying in gmail so my patch will be
> > > whitespace-damaged (sigh), but you can find a clean one at:
> > >
> > > https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/kernel/+/e03=
25d618e209c22379e3a4269c14627b19243a8%5E%21/#F0
> > >
> > > ...the basic idea is this though:
> > >
> >
> > Thanks! Here's an updated patch that I haven't compile tested in any way
> > that hoists up the IO mapping part too, which shows that the 'se' local
> > variable is almost entirely useless.
> =

> Yeah, I'd be all for getting rid of "se".  I'm still not really seeing
> the benefit of hoisting all the rest of the stuff up.  Do you feel
> strongly about it?
> =

> In any case I think we've both said that all of our comments so far
> are just nits and could be addressed in a followup patch.  Unless Mark
> Brown wants these nits fixed ahead of time or has other changes he'd
> like, I don't think we're expecting another spin of this patch from
> Alok or Dilip, right?  We'd just expect them to post some follow-up
> patches after Mark lands it?
> =

> =


Yes this is all nits territory. I don't really care too much, but the
patch is already written, so might as well roll it all in and make
things shiny.

Time to get back to real work :P