Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-67392-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 18:20:15 +0100
From: Uwe =?utf-8?Q?Kleine-K=C3=B6nig?= <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@intel.com>, jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com, 
	mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com, lakshmi.sowjanya.d@intel.com, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] pwm: dwc: drop redundant error check
Message-ID: <likebxfhlcg6equjhxnf7cimsgac4qvoge3bf65qyir6apwq4n@iotwg6zjjr6c>
References: <20240208070529.28562-1-raag.jadav@intel.com>
 <20240208070529.28562-2-raag.jadav@intel.com>
 <qrwcje4t2pbbxilnlfz2q7njodcp6vl54uaypdbvjgvwhgvc5g@4eq5wvumpjjx>
 <ZcUJoSMhgC7lhY-H@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <cv6w4n2ptcdehn5n3mipuyfrtemm4rldhiyppazk4uqdn2xx7e@hxg4kldaacxk>
 <Zcz-csPY5x29DP7v@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <sd2ugzjrmrdvcyxotoyg53qp3i7ta4yko225ln3gk4fmik7iof@a7mab6o2kkvz>
 <Zc4TTLetiGhJlx8d@smile.fi.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="nzhwffwfhtbddob5"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Zc4TTLetiGhJlx8d@smile.fi.intel.com>


--nzhwffwfhtbddob5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello Andy,

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 03:36:12PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 10:22:57AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig wrote:
> > If a driver author knows it while writing the code, it's obvious. But if
> > the driver author looks again in 2 years or someone else (e.g. me with
> > the PWM maintainer hat on and with little pci experience) that knowledge
> > might be faded.
>=20
> This is widely used pattern. Anybody who works with Git should know how
> to use `git grep` tool. If in doubts, always can ask in the mailing lists.

IMHO you're assuming to much. If someone sees this pattern and quickly
looks at the implementation of pcim_iomap_table() they might (as I did)
conclude that this call should be error checked. If they send a patch in
say 2 years I think I won't remember this discussion/patch and happily
accept this patch. And I probably won't get enough doubts to start
grepping around.

> I still consider it redundant.
>=20
> P.S. That's what you call "bikeshedding" (done by yourself here)?

I can understand that you consider that bikeshedding given that for you
it's obvious that the second function cannot fail. For me it's not and I
take this as a hint that it's not obvious for everyone.

Best regards
Uwe

--=20
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

--nzhwffwfhtbddob5
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEP4GsaTp6HlmJrf7Tj4D7WH0S/k4FAmXOR84ACgkQj4D7WH0S
/k7egQgAomdmzTMreh6wBaC9N99w6iyzXtHVBFeEUMU42kCw/Wyp1/JUwDkbzoQN
YT86ZJQ/4y1lECvtsogD3H10f/OCuJgizYgyFdf3oKTVvl5CvkiPjjHFnwXmgwP6
m2K2F9v49C/oQ0ZB5wFAdJOcbwhIf2NJczBaAuuhH+qt14aknkmRogP2TfBFHljM
IsktlhR4/S/lFypmxf6fcKQp5VHSL4naDyMQt2AfC3uvZeEiSKL0VapFhIIe912L
atvbzMhxUnutQRP0mvc9uDc6zVI+8JUQD7pn3iWd938dkQ/kDQwV6x1rsFDi59PT
zcn5n804FbnTzDB9YYgeGqevKnCrIA==
=VoYV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nzhwffwfhtbddob5--