Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-88137-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 09:02:41 +0000
From: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>
To: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ideasonboard.com>
Cc: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>, linux-media@vger.kernel.org,
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: i2c: ds90ub960: Delete duplicate source code in
 ub960_parse_dt_rxports()
Message-ID: <ZeGZsRtH6YLx2FiM@kekkonen.localdomain>
References: <79fa4854-976d-4aad-86ac-c156b0c4937e@web.de>
 <ZeGV_siWFkfqSEgZ@kekkonen.localdomain>
 <db1d7227-f9a4-42fa-89ba-b484e1260e0b@ideasonboard.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <db1d7227-f9a4-42fa-89ba-b484e1260e0b@ideasonboard.com>

Huomenta,

On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 10:49:19AM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 01/03/2024 10:46, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > Hi Markus,
> > 
> > On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 08:46:25AM +0100, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> > > Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 08:23:24 +0100
> > > 
> > > Avoid the specification of a duplicate fwnode_handle_put() call
> > > in this function implementation.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c | 5 +----
> > >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c
> > > index ffe5f25f8647..eb708ed7b56e 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c
> > > @@ -3486,10 +3486,7 @@ static int ub960_parse_dt_rxports(struct ub960_data *priv)
> > >   		}
> > >   	}
> > > 
> > > -	fwnode_handle_put(links_fwnode);
> > > -
> > > -	return 0;
> > > -
> > > +	ret = 0;
> > 
> > I think it'd be nicer to initialise ret as zero, then you can just drop the
> > assignment above.
> 
> I don't like successful execution entering error paths. That's why there's
> the return 0.

It could be called a common cleanup path as what you really want to do here
is to put the fwnode handle, independently of whether there was an error.
I think the current code is of course fine, too.

Soon you can do

	struct fwnode_handle *links_fwnode __free(fwnode_handle);

and forget about putting it (but you must need putting it).

-- 
Terveisin,

Sakari Ailus