Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
Date:   Thu, 30 Nov 2023 11:35:17 +0000
From:   Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>
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: <20231130113517.GJ1470173@google.com>
References: <20230609014818.28475-1-jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>
 <ZWDhpZLCZ5xz1RKR@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <20231127085356.GD1470173@google.com>
 <ZWSQnZfGKQ_0DaYJ@smile.fi.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <ZWSQnZfGKQ_0DaYJ@smile.fi.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 27 Nov 2023, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

> 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?

You have to send links when you say things like this.

Last week I had 1000 unread upstream mails in this inbox.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]