Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-71013-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 11:15:24 +0200
From: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@intel.com>
To: Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Thorsten Scherer <T.Scherer@eckelmann.de>,
	jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com, mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com,
	andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, lakshmi.sowjanya.d@intel.com,
	linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] pwm: dwc: drop redundant error check
Message-ID: <ZdMcLAIsi6UHPUho@black.fi.intel.com>
References: <20240219033835.11369-1-raag.jadav@intel.com>
 <20240219033835.11369-3-raag.jadav@intel.com>
 <m57yqdldszy3s44p5rdxd6kwii5tqzqa44aaevpe7bep2yyeuo@wls3ad3gcl7y>
 <4cl5y62fv4jezk7i3cacv5ukzwyp66uflp3upg4czy4dp7g43v@cfbm2seewpst>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <4cl5y62fv4jezk7i3cacv5ukzwyp66uflp3upg4czy4dp7g43v@cfbm2seewpst>

On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 08:27:43AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 08:11:00AM +0100, Thorsten Scherer wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 09:08:33AM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > > pcim_iomap_table() fails only if pcim_iomap_regions() fails. No need to
> > > check for failure if the latter is already successful.
> > > 
> > > Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@intel.com>
> > > Tested-by: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c | 5 +----
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c
> > > index c0e586688e57..7dbb72c80ef5 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c
> > > @@ -51,11 +51,8 @@ static int dwc_pwm_probe(struct pci_dev *pci, const struct pci_device_id *id)
> > >  		return ret;
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > +	/* No need to check for failure, pcim_iomap_regions() does it for us. */
> > 
> > IMHO this comment could be omitted.
> 
> I like the comment (and even asked for it). Is it really only me who
> doesn't know that after pcim_iomap_regions() calling pcim_iomap_table()
> is unproblematic?

Neither did I :) (Check the v1 discussion)

Raag