Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-187961-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Message-ID: <f42151e1-d62e-4346-9acc-0aa10ca52ba9@linux.dev>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 16:18:42 -0400
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] PCI: xilinx-nwl: Clean up clock on probe
 failure/removal
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>,
 linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
 =?UTF-8?Q?Krzysztof_Wilczy=C5=84ski?= <kw@linux.com>,
 Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@kernel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
 Bharat Kumar Gogada <bharat.kumar.gogada@xilinx.com>,
 Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
 Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
 Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com>, Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>,
 Thippeswamy Havalige <thippeswamy.havalige@amd.com>
References: <20240520145402.2526481-6-sean.anderson@linux.dev>
 <4a43cda4-dfa4-4156-b616-75e740f6fd64@web.de>
 <bb9e239f-902b-4f52-a5e9-98c29b360418@linux.dev>
 <f541195e-7963-4970-9a1d-a3298226cdd5@web.de>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@linux.dev>
In-Reply-To: <f541195e-7963-4970-9a1d-a3298226cdd5@web.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 5/23/24 16:11, Markus Elfring wrote:
>>> …
>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-xilinx-nwl.c
>>> …
>>>> @@ -817,11 +818,23 @@ static int nwl_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>  		err = nwl_pcie_enable_msi(pcie);
>>>>  		if (err < 0) {
>>>>  			dev_err(dev, "failed to enable MSI support: %d\n", err);
>>>> -			return err;
>>>> +			goto err_clk;
>>>>  		}
>>>>  	}
>>>>
>>>> -	return pci_host_probe(bridge);
>>>> +	err = pci_host_probe(bridge);
>>>> +
>>>> +err_clk:
>>>> +	if (err)
>>>> +		clk_disable_unprepare(pcie->clk);
>>>
>>> I suggest to use the label “disable_unprepare_clock” directly before this function call
>>> (in the if branch) so that a duplicate check would be avoided after some error cases.
>>
>> Well if you want to avoid a check, we can just do
>>
>> err = pci_host_probe(bridge);
>> if (!err)
>> 	return 0;
>>
>> err_clk:
>> 	...
> 
> This design variant can also be reasonable.
> 
> Do any preferences matter here for label name selections?

Personally, I prefer to use labels named after what they're cleaning up and not what they're doing.

--Sean