Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <CAHcu+VaDBj87stJ9JJkuerJkr8=-g68FhUUnKvfpN8uYaMBUhQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20200724183954.1.I2e29ae25368ba8a72a9e44121cfbc36ead8ecc6b@changeid> <20200728151258.1222876-1-campello@chromium.org> <20200728091057.3.I2a1314232ace4323af96f9981c1e1a4f31f78049@changeid> <CAHp75VfOhoJrHEnC_Wh2qnOMX0pT1Jx92B0TFQ5=cfZsTSNSOg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHcu+VaDBj87stJ9JJkuerJkr8=-g68FhUUnKvfpN8uYaMBUhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/15] iio: sx9310: Fix irq handling
From:   Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
Cc:     LKML <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
        Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@chromium.org>,
        Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@gmx.de>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
        Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@pmeerw.net>,
        linux-iio <linux-iio@vger.kernel.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
        Daniel Campello <campello@chromium.org>
Date:   Tue, 28 Jul 2020 13:15:17 -0700
Message-ID: <159596731796.1360974.3913058992312532558@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
User-Agent: alot/0.9.1
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Quoting Daniel Campello (2020-07-28 13:07:00)
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 12:08 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 6:14 PM Daniel Campello <campello@chromium.org>=
 wrote:
> > >
> > > Fixes enable/disable irq handling at various points. The driver needs=
 to
> > > only enable/disable irqs if there is an actual irq handler installed.
> >
> > > -       enable_irq(data->client->irq);
> > > +       if (!ret)
> > > +               enable_irq(data->client->irq);
> > >
> > >         return ret;
> > >  }
> >
> > Can it be a usual pattern?
> >
> >   if (ret)
> >     return ret;
> >   ...
> >   return 0;
>=20
> I think this way is more readable. The alternative would have to be
> something like this:
>=20
> ....
> if (ret)
>   goto out;
> mutex_unlock(&data->mutex);
> enable_irq(data->client->irq);
> return 0;
>=20
> out:
> mutex_unlock(&data->mutex);
> return ret;
>=20

I think the suggestion is

	mutex_unlock(&data->mutex);
	if (ret)
		return ret;

	enable_irq(data->client->irq);

	return 0;