Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.36 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.36;
Date:   Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:50:37 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>
To:     Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
Cc:     Jiasheng Jiang <jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mfd: intel-lpss: Add missing check for
 platform_get_resource
Message-ID: <ZWSQnZfGKQ_0DaYJ@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20230609014818.28475-1-jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>
 <ZWDhpZLCZ5xz1RKR@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <20231127085356.GD1470173@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231127085356.GD1470173@google.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 08:53:56AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2023, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 09:48:18AM +0800, Jiasheng Jiang wrote:

...

> > > Fixes: 4b45efe85263 ("mfd: Add support for Intel Sunrisepoint LPSS devices")
> > 
> > This does not fix anything and just introduces a duplication code.
> > I would like this to be reverted. Should I send one?
> 
> Checking this value at the source of obtention and providing and earlier
> return with arguably a better return value, all at the cost of an
> inexpensive pointer comparison to NULL doesn't sound like a terrible
> idea.

In general, I agree with you, but the cases similar to this. Why?
Because memory resource retrieval and remapping has a lot of helpers,
some of which are enriched with own error handling and messaging.

Yes, we use devm_ioremap_uc(), which doesn't give that (yet?).
However, it will be more work if we, theoretically, switch to
something like devm_ioremap_resource() in the future.

Hence, I would like to have a common code to be in common place
and behave in the same way independently on the glue druver (PCI,
ACPI, etc).

> If you were committed to the idea of removing it, which I suggest you
> reconsider, I would insist that you replace it with at least a comment.

Isn't what I have done in the series I sent last week?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko