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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201026133609.24262-1-brgl@bgdev.pl> <20201026133609.24262-5-brgl@bgdev.pl>
 <20201029154118.12fd6c23@archlinux>
In-Reply-To: <20201029154118.12fd6c23@archlinux>
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Date:   Fri, 30 Oct 2020 11:52:00 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMRc=Mfun85W+ZfJqaXohCQ8tNGDxjxmvdFuwsQ07jMhG+vU7w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] iio: adc: xilinx: use devres for irq handling
To:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
Cc:     Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
        Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@pmeerw.net>,
        Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>,
        linux-iio <linux-iio@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 4:41 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 14:36:08 +0100
> Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl> wrote:
>
> > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
> >
> > Further simplify the remove() callback and error paths in probe() by
> > using the managed variant of request_irq() as well as using a devm action
> > for cancelling the delayed work at driver detach.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
>
> Again, this is potentially fine but I'd rather you cleaned up the ordering first
> rather than doing things in this order.
>
> The end result of the whole series looks like it will be correct, but that isn't
> so obvious for the intermediate patches on their own.
>
> Also, you end up with a lot of noise renaming gotos that then go away at the
> end.
>
> Jonathan
>

Hi Jonathan,

My two priorities for the ordering of this series were: correct
end-result and not breaking anything on the way. The latter
unfortunately gets in the way of cleaner looking intermediate patches.

I tried to not alter the ordering in which the resources are freed at
any step. As devres release callbacks are called *after* remove() and
in a reverse order to how they were registered, I needed to start from
the bottom of the remove() callback and convert the last operation,
then go upwards from there.

If I tried to do it from the top - I probably could remove labels
earlier and in a cleaner manner but it wouldn't guarantee
bisectability.

Bartosz