Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220903-gpiod_get_from_of_node-remove-v1-0-b29adfb27a6c@gmail.com>
 <20220903-gpiod_get_from_of_node-remove-v1-10-b29adfb27a6c@gmail.com>
 <CAHp75Vd35EOy=mP25=9fmYfqQnbafgotHw1fxk-TdGk6Oc8g8Q@mail.gmail.com> <75e60144-9fa2-d6ba-bc92-edd23f7e7189@roeck-us.net>
In-Reply-To: <75e60144-9fa2-d6ba-bc92-edd23f7e7189@roeck-us.net>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 5 Sep 2022 18:21:42 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75VcisCTYoRp-=713YKtwi7BQyPKGiUhF4DkpfAFtvDXCiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 10/11] watchdog: bd9576_wdt: switch to using devm_fwnode_gpiod_get()
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc:     Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
        Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@microchip.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@linux-watchdog.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Krzysztof_Wilczy=C5=84ski?= <kw@linux.com>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>,
        Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Pali_Roh=C3=A1r?= <pali@kernel.org>,
        LINUXWATCHDOG <linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org>,
        USB <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-pci <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-tegra <linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:MEMORY TECHNOLOGY..." <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 6:13 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> On 9/5/22 04:09, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 9:33 AM Dmitry Torokhov
> > <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote:

...

> >> +       count = device_property_count_u32(dev->parent, "rohm,hw-timeout-ms");
> >> +       if (count < 0 && count != -EINVAL)
> >> +               return count;
> >> +
> >> +       if (count > 0) {
> >
> >> +               if (count > ARRAY_SIZE(hw_margin))
> >> +                       return -EINVAL;
> >
> > Why double check? You may move it out of the (count > 0).
>
> Two checks will always be needed, so I don't entirely see
> how that would be better.

But not nested. That's my point:

if (count > ARRAY_SIZE())
  return ...
if (count > 0)
  ...

> >> -       if (ret == 1)
> >> -               hw_margin_max = hw_margin[0];
> >
> >> +               ret = device_property_read_u32_array(dev->parent,
> >> +                                                    "rohm,hw-timeout-ms",
> >> +                                                    hw_margin, count);
> >> +               if (ret < 0)
> >> +                       return ret;
> >
> > So, only this needs the count > 0 check since below already has it implicitly.
> >
> Sorry, I don't understand this comment.

if (count > 0) {
  ret = device_property_read_u32_array(...);
  ...
}
if (count == 1)
 ...
if (count == 2)
 ...

But here it might be better to have the nested conditionals.

> >> -       if (ret == 2) {
> >> -               hw_margin_max = hw_margin[1];
> >> -               hw_margin_min = hw_margin[0];
> >> +               if (count == 1)
> >> +                       hw_margin_max = hw_margin[0];
> >> +
> >> +               if (count == 2) {
> >> +                       hw_margin_max = hw_margin[1];
> >> +                       hw_margin_min = hw_margin[0];
> >> +               }
> >>          }

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko