[PATCH] iio: adc: fsl-imx25-gcq: fix the right check and simplify code

[PATCH] iio: adc: fsl-imx25-gcq: fix the right check and simplify code

[Tang Bin]

For the function of platform_get_irq(), the example in platform.c is
*		int irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
*		if (irq < 0)
*			return irq;
So the return value of zero is unnecessary to check. And move it
up to a little bit can simplify the code jump.

Co-developed-by: Zhang Shengju <zhangshengju@cmss.chinamobile.com>
Signed-off-by: Zhang Shengju <zhangshengju@cmss.chinamobile.com>
Signed-off-by: Tang Bin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com>
---
 drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c | 12 ++++--------
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c b/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
index 8cb51cf7a..d28976f21 100644
--- a/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
+++ b/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
@@ -320,6 +320,10 @@ static int mx25_gcq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	if (ret)
 		return ret;
 
+	priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
+	if (priv->irq < 0)
+		return priv->irq;
+
 	for (i = 0; i != 4; ++i) {
 		if (!priv->vref[i])
 			continue;
@@ -336,14 +340,6 @@ static int mx25_gcq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 		goto err_vref_disable;
 	}
 
-	priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
-	if (priv->irq <= 0) {
-		ret = priv->irq;
-		if (!ret)
-			ret = -ENXIO;
-		goto err_clk_unprepare;
-	}
-
 	ret = request_irq(priv->irq, mx25_gcq_irq, 0, pdev->name, priv);
 	if (ret) {
 		dev_err(dev, "Failed requesting IRQ\n");
-- 
2.20.1.windows.1

[PATCH] iio: adc: fsl-imx25-gcq: fix the right check and simplify code

[Tang Bin]

For the function of platform_get_irq(), the example in platform.c is
*		int irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
*		if (irq < 0)
*			return irq;
So the return value of zero is unnecessary to check. And move it
up to a little bit can simplify the code jump.

Co-developed-by: Zhang Shengju <zhangshengju@cmss.chinamobile.com>
Signed-off-by: Zhang Shengju <zhangshengju@cmss.chinamobile.com>
Signed-off-by: Tang Bin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com>
---
 drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c | 12 ++++--------
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c b/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
index 8cb51cf7a..d28976f21 100644
--- a/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
+++ b/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
@@ -320,6 +320,10 @@ static int mx25_gcq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	if (ret)
 		return ret;
 
+	priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
+	if (priv->irq < 0)
+		return priv->irq;
+
 	for (i = 0; i != 4; ++i) {
 		if (!priv->vref[i])
 			continue;
@@ -336,14 +340,6 @@ static int mx25_gcq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 		goto err_vref_disable;
 	}
 
-	priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
-	if (priv->irq <= 0) {
-		ret = priv->irq;
-		if (!ret)
-			ret = -ENXIO;
-		goto err_clk_unprepare;
-	}
-
 	ret = request_irq(priv->irq, mx25_gcq_irq, 0, pdev->name, priv);
 	if (ret) {
 		dev_err(dev, "Failed requesting IRQ\n");
-- 
2.20.1.windows.1




_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: fsl-imx25-gcq: fix the right check and simplify code

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 20:52:09 +0800
Tang Bin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com> wrote:

> For the function of platform_get_irq(), the example in platform.c is
> *		int irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> *		if (irq < 0)
> *			return irq;
> So the return value of zero is unnecessary to check. And move it
> up to a little bit can simplify the code jump.
> 
> Co-developed-by: Zhang Shengju <zhangshengju@cmss.chinamobile.com>
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Shengju <zhangshengju@cmss.chinamobile.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tang Bin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com>

Hi,

Logically it is better to keep the irq handling all together, so 
I would prefer we didn't move it.

Also, platform_get_irq() is documented as never returning 0, so the current
code is not incorrect.  As such, this looks like noise unless there is
some plan to make use of the 0 return value?  What benefit do we get from
this change?

Thanks,

Jonathan

> ---
>  drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c | 12 ++++--------
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c b/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
> index 8cb51cf7a..d28976f21 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
> @@ -320,6 +320,10 @@ static int mx25_gcq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
>  
> +	priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> +	if (priv->irq < 0)
> +		return priv->irq;
> +
>  	for (i = 0; i != 4; ++i) {
>  		if (!priv->vref[i])
>  			continue;
> @@ -336,14 +340,6 @@ static int mx25_gcq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  		goto err_vref_disable;
>  	}
>  
> -	priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> -	if (priv->irq <= 0) {
> -		ret = priv->irq;
> -		if (!ret)
> -			ret = -ENXIO;
> -		goto err_clk_unprepare;
> -	}
> -
>  	ret = request_irq(priv->irq, mx25_gcq_irq, 0, pdev->name, priv);
>  	if (ret) {
>  		dev_err(dev, "Failed requesting IRQ\n");

Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: fsl-imx25-gcq: fix the right check and simplify code

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 20:52:09 +0800
Tang Bin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com> wrote:

> For the function of platform_get_irq(), the example in platform.c is
> *		int irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> *		if (irq < 0)
> *			return irq;
> So the return value of zero is unnecessary to check. And move it
> up to a little bit can simplify the code jump.
> 
> Co-developed-by: Zhang Shengju <zhangshengju@cmss.chinamobile.com>
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Shengju <zhangshengju@cmss.chinamobile.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tang Bin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com>

Hi,

Logically it is better to keep the irq handling all together, so 
I would prefer we didn't move it.

Also, platform_get_irq() is documented as never returning 0, so the current
code is not incorrect.  As such, this looks like noise unless there is
some plan to make use of the 0 return value?  What benefit do we get from
this change?

Thanks,

Jonathan

> ---
>  drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c | 12 ++++--------
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c b/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
> index 8cb51cf7a..d28976f21 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
> @@ -320,6 +320,10 @@ static int mx25_gcq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
>  
> +	priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> +	if (priv->irq < 0)
> +		return priv->irq;
> +
>  	for (i = 0; i != 4; ++i) {
>  		if (!priv->vref[i])
>  			continue;
> @@ -336,14 +340,6 @@ static int mx25_gcq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  		goto err_vref_disable;
>  	}
>  
> -	priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> -	if (priv->irq <= 0) {
> -		ret = priv->irq;
> -		if (!ret)
> -			ret = -ENXIO;
> -		goto err_clk_unprepare;
> -	}
> -
>  	ret = request_irq(priv->irq, mx25_gcq_irq, 0, pdev->name, priv);
>  	if (ret) {
>  		dev_err(dev, "Failed requesting IRQ\n");


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: fsl-imx25-gcq: fix the right check and simplify code

[tangbin]

Hi Jonathan:

On 2021/8/1 0:45, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 20:52:09 +0800
> Tang Bin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com> wrote:
>
>> For the function of platform_get_irq(), the example in platform.c is
>> *		int irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>> *		if (irq < 0)
>> *			return irq;
>> So the return value of zero is unnecessary to check. And move it
>> up to a little bit can simplify the code jump.
>>
>> Co-developed-by: Zhang Shengju <zhangshengju@cmss.chinamobile.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhang Shengju <zhangshengju@cmss.chinamobile.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Tang Bin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com>
> Hi,
>
> Logically it is better to keep the irq handling all together, so
> I would prefer we didn't move it.
Got it in this place.
>
> Also, platform_get_irq() is documented as never returning 0, so the current
> code is not incorrect.  As such, this looks like noise unless there is
> some plan to make use of the 0 return value?  What benefit do we get from
> this change?

Thanks for your reply, I think the benefit of this change maybe just 
simplify the code.

Because the return value is never equal to 0, so the check in here is 
redundant.

We can make the patch like this:

>> ---
>>   drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c | 12 ++++--------
>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c b/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
>> index 8cb51cf7a..d28976f21 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
>> @@ -320,6 +320,10 @@ static int mx25_gcq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>   	if (ret)
>>   		return ret;
>>   
>> +	priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>> +	if (priv->irq < 0)
>> +		return priv->irq;
>> +
>>   	for (i = 0; i != 4; ++i) {
>>   		if (!priv->vref[i])
>>   			continue;
>> @@ -336,14 +340,6 @@ static int mx25_gcq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>   		goto err_vref_disable;
>>   	}
>>   
>> -	priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>> -	if (priv->irq <= 0) {
>> -		ret = priv->irq;
>> -		if (!ret)
>> -			ret = -ENXIO;
>> -		goto err_clk_unprepare;
>> -	}
>> -

	priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
	if (priv->irq < 0) {
		ret = priv->irq;
		goto err_clk_unprepare;
	}

     If you think this is ok, I will send V2 for you. If you think these 
change is meaningless,

just dropped this.

Thanks

Tang Bin

Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: fsl-imx25-gcq: fix the right check and simplify code

[tangbin]

Hi Jonathan:

On 2021/8/1 0:45, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 20:52:09 +0800
> Tang Bin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com> wrote:
>
>> For the function of platform_get_irq(), the example in platform.c is
>> *		int irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>> *		if (irq < 0)
>> *			return irq;
>> So the return value of zero is unnecessary to check. And move it
>> up to a little bit can simplify the code jump.
>>
>> Co-developed-by: Zhang Shengju <zhangshengju@cmss.chinamobile.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhang Shengju <zhangshengju@cmss.chinamobile.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Tang Bin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com>
> Hi,
>
> Logically it is better to keep the irq handling all together, so
> I would prefer we didn't move it.
Got it in this place.
>
> Also, platform_get_irq() is documented as never returning 0, so the current
> code is not incorrect.  As such, this looks like noise unless there is
> some plan to make use of the 0 return value?  What benefit do we get from
> this change?

Thanks for your reply, I think the benefit of this change maybe just 
simplify the code.

Because the return value is never equal to 0, so the check in here is 
redundant.

We can make the patch like this:

>> ---
>>   drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c | 12 ++++--------
>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c b/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
>> index 8cb51cf7a..d28976f21 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
>> @@ -320,6 +320,10 @@ static int mx25_gcq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>   	if (ret)
>>   		return ret;
>>   
>> +	priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>> +	if (priv->irq < 0)
>> +		return priv->irq;
>> +
>>   	for (i = 0; i != 4; ++i) {
>>   		if (!priv->vref[i])
>>   			continue;
>> @@ -336,14 +340,6 @@ static int mx25_gcq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>   		goto err_vref_disable;
>>   	}
>>   
>> -	priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>> -	if (priv->irq <= 0) {
>> -		ret = priv->irq;
>> -		if (!ret)
>> -			ret = -ENXIO;
>> -		goto err_clk_unprepare;
>> -	}
>> -

	priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
	if (priv->irq < 0) {
		ret = priv->irq;
		goto err_clk_unprepare;
	}

     If you think this is ok, I will send V2 for you. If you think these 
change is meaningless,

just dropped this.

Thanks

Tang Bin





_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: fsl-imx25-gcq: fix the right check and simplify code

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 10:31:58 +0800
tangbin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com> wrote:

> Hi Jonathan:
> 
> On 2021/8/1 0:45, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 20:52:09 +0800
> > Tang Bin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com> wrote:
> >  
> >> For the function of platform_get_irq(), the example in platform.c is
> >> *		int irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> >> *		if (irq < 0)
> >> *			return irq;
> >> So the return value of zero is unnecessary to check. And move it
> >> up to a little bit can simplify the code jump.
> >>
> >> Co-developed-by: Zhang Shengju <zhangshengju@cmss.chinamobile.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Zhang Shengju <zhangshengju@cmss.chinamobile.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Tang Bin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com>  
> > Hi,
> >
> > Logically it is better to keep the irq handling all together, so
> > I would prefer we didn't move it.  
> Got it in this place.
> >
> > Also, platform_get_irq() is documented as never returning 0, so the current
> > code is not incorrect.  As such, this looks like noise unless there is
> > some plan to make use of the 0 return value?  What benefit do we get from
> > this change?  
> 
> Thanks for your reply, I think the benefit of this change maybe just 
> simplify the code.
> 
> Because the return value is never equal to 0, so the check in here is 
> redundant.
> 
> We can make the patch like this:
> 
> >> ---
> >>   drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c | 12 ++++--------
> >>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c b/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
> >> index 8cb51cf7a..d28976f21 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
> >> @@ -320,6 +320,10 @@ static int mx25_gcq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>   	if (ret)
> >>   		return ret;
> >>   
> >> +	priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> >> +	if (priv->irq < 0)
> >> +		return priv->irq;
> >> +
> >>   	for (i = 0; i != 4; ++i) {
> >>   		if (!priv->vref[i])
> >>   			continue;
> >> @@ -336,14 +340,6 @@ static int mx25_gcq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>   		goto err_vref_disable;
> >>   	}
> >>   
> >> -	priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> >> -	if (priv->irq <= 0) {
> >> -		ret = priv->irq;
> >> -		if (!ret)
> >> -			ret = -ENXIO;
> >> -		goto err_clk_unprepare;
> >> -	}
> >> -  
> 
> 	priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> 	if (priv->irq < 0) {
> 		ret = priv->irq;
> 		goto err_clk_unprepare;
> 	}
> 
>      If you think this is ok, I will send V2 for you. If you think these 
> change is meaningless,

OK, it's a minor tidy up, so lets go with that, or perhaps this is even tidier?
Assuming types of ret and irq are appropriate (I've not checked!)


	ret = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
	if (ret)
		goto err_clk_unprepare;

	priv->irq = ret;


> 
> just dropped this.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Tang Bin
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: fsl-imx25-gcq: fix the right check and simplify code

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 10:31:58 +0800
tangbin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com> wrote:

> Hi Jonathan:
> 
> On 2021/8/1 0:45, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 20:52:09 +0800
> > Tang Bin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com> wrote:
> >  
> >> For the function of platform_get_irq(), the example in platform.c is
> >> *		int irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> >> *		if (irq < 0)
> >> *			return irq;
> >> So the return value of zero is unnecessary to check. And move it
> >> up to a little bit can simplify the code jump.
> >>
> >> Co-developed-by: Zhang Shengju <zhangshengju@cmss.chinamobile.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Zhang Shengju <zhangshengju@cmss.chinamobile.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Tang Bin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com>  
> > Hi,
> >
> > Logically it is better to keep the irq handling all together, so
> > I would prefer we didn't move it.  
> Got it in this place.
> >
> > Also, platform_get_irq() is documented as never returning 0, so the current
> > code is not incorrect.  As such, this looks like noise unless there is
> > some plan to make use of the 0 return value?  What benefit do we get from
> > this change?  
> 
> Thanks for your reply, I think the benefit of this change maybe just 
> simplify the code.
> 
> Because the return value is never equal to 0, so the check in here is 
> redundant.
> 
> We can make the patch like this:
> 
> >> ---
> >>   drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c | 12 ++++--------
> >>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c b/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
> >> index 8cb51cf7a..d28976f21 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
> >> @@ -320,6 +320,10 @@ static int mx25_gcq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>   	if (ret)
> >>   		return ret;
> >>   
> >> +	priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> >> +	if (priv->irq < 0)
> >> +		return priv->irq;
> >> +
> >>   	for (i = 0; i != 4; ++i) {
> >>   		if (!priv->vref[i])
> >>   			continue;
> >> @@ -336,14 +340,6 @@ static int mx25_gcq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>   		goto err_vref_disable;
> >>   	}
> >>   
> >> -	priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> >> -	if (priv->irq <= 0) {
> >> -		ret = priv->irq;
> >> -		if (!ret)
> >> -			ret = -ENXIO;
> >> -		goto err_clk_unprepare;
> >> -	}
> >> -  
> 
> 	priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> 	if (priv->irq < 0) {
> 		ret = priv->irq;
> 		goto err_clk_unprepare;
> 	}
> 
>      If you think this is ok, I will send V2 for you. If you think these 
> change is meaningless,

OK, it's a minor tidy up, so lets go with that, or perhaps this is even tidier?
Assuming types of ret and irq are appropriate (I've not checked!)


	ret = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
	if (ret)
		goto err_clk_unprepare;

	priv->irq = ret;


> 
> just dropped this.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Tang Bin
> 
> 
> 
> 


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: fsl-imx25-gcq: fix the right check andsimplify code

[tangbin]

Hi Jonathan:

On 2021/8/2 18:16, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 10:31:58 +0800
> tangbin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jonathan:
>>
>> On 2021/8/1 0:45, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 20:52:09 +0800
>>> Tang Bin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com> wrote:
>>>   
>>>> For the function of platform_get_irq(), the example in platform.c is
>>>> *		int irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>>>> *		if (irq < 0)
>>>> *			return irq;
>>>> So the return value of zero is unnecessary to check. And move it
>>>> up to a little bit can simplify the code jump.
>>>>
>>>> Co-developed-by: Zhang Shengju <zhangshengju@cmss.chinamobile.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhang Shengju <zhangshengju@cmss.chinamobile.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tang Bin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Logically it is better to keep the irq handling all together, so
>>> I would prefer we didn't move it.
>> Got it in this place.
>>> Also, platform_get_irq() is documented as never returning 0, so the current
>>> code is not incorrect.  As such, this looks like noise unless there is
>>> some plan to make use of the 0 return value?  What benefit do we get from
>>> this change?
>> Thanks for your reply, I think the benefit of this change maybe just
>> simplify the code.
>>
>> Because the return value is never equal to 0, so the check in here is
>> redundant.
>>
>> We can make the patch like this:
>>
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c | 12 ++++--------
>>>>    1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c b/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
>>>> index 8cb51cf7a..d28976f21 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
>>>> @@ -320,6 +320,10 @@ static int mx25_gcq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>    	if (ret)
>>>>    		return ret;
>>>>    
>>>> +	priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>>>> +	if (priv->irq < 0)
>>>> +		return priv->irq;
>>>> +
>>>>    	for (i = 0; i != 4; ++i) {
>>>>    		if (!priv->vref[i])
>>>>    			continue;
>>>> @@ -336,14 +340,6 @@ static int mx25_gcq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>    		goto err_vref_disable;
>>>>    	}
>>>>    
>>>> -	priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>>>> -	if (priv->irq <= 0) {
>>>> -		ret = priv->irq;
>>>> -		if (!ret)
>>>> -			ret = -ENXIO;
>>>> -		goto err_clk_unprepare;
>>>> -	}
>>>> -
>> 	priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>> 	if (priv->irq < 0) {
>> 		ret = priv->irq;
>> 		goto err_clk_unprepare;
>> 	}
>>
>>       If you think this is ok, I will send V2 for you. If you think these
>> change is meaningless,
> OK, it's a minor tidy up, so lets go with that, or perhaps this is even tidier?
> Assuming types of ret and irq are appropriate (I've not checked!)
>
>
> 	ret = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> 	if (ret)
> 		goto err_clk_unprepare;
>
> 	priv->irq = ret;
>
Thanks for your reply, ret or irq or priv->irq are all appropriate, and 
the changes of mine maybe traditional.

I will send v2 for you like your changes.

Thank you very much.

Tang Bin


>> just dropped this.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Tang Bin
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: fsl-imx25-gcq: fix the right check andsimplify code

[tangbin]

Hi Jonathan:

On 2021/8/2 18:16, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 10:31:58 +0800
> tangbin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jonathan:
>>
>> On 2021/8/1 0:45, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 20:52:09 +0800
>>> Tang Bin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com> wrote:
>>>   
>>>> For the function of platform_get_irq(), the example in platform.c is
>>>> *		int irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>>>> *		if (irq < 0)
>>>> *			return irq;
>>>> So the return value of zero is unnecessary to check. And move it
>>>> up to a little bit can simplify the code jump.
>>>>
>>>> Co-developed-by: Zhang Shengju <zhangshengju@cmss.chinamobile.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhang Shengju <zhangshengju@cmss.chinamobile.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tang Bin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Logically it is better to keep the irq handling all together, so
>>> I would prefer we didn't move it.
>> Got it in this place.
>>> Also, platform_get_irq() is documented as never returning 0, so the current
>>> code is not incorrect.  As such, this looks like noise unless there is
>>> some plan to make use of the 0 return value?  What benefit do we get from
>>> this change?
>> Thanks for your reply, I think the benefit of this change maybe just
>> simplify the code.
>>
>> Because the return value is never equal to 0, so the check in here is
>> redundant.
>>
>> We can make the patch like this:
>>
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c | 12 ++++--------
>>>>    1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c b/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
>>>> index 8cb51cf7a..d28976f21 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/fsl-imx25-gcq.c
>>>> @@ -320,6 +320,10 @@ static int mx25_gcq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>    	if (ret)
>>>>    		return ret;
>>>>    
>>>> +	priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>>>> +	if (priv->irq < 0)
>>>> +		return priv->irq;
>>>> +
>>>>    	for (i = 0; i != 4; ++i) {
>>>>    		if (!priv->vref[i])
>>>>    			continue;
>>>> @@ -336,14 +340,6 @@ static int mx25_gcq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>    		goto err_vref_disable;
>>>>    	}
>>>>    
>>>> -	priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>>>> -	if (priv->irq <= 0) {
>>>> -		ret = priv->irq;
>>>> -		if (!ret)
>>>> -			ret = -ENXIO;
>>>> -		goto err_clk_unprepare;
>>>> -	}
>>>> -
>> 	priv->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>> 	if (priv->irq < 0) {
>> 		ret = priv->irq;
>> 		goto err_clk_unprepare;
>> 	}
>>
>>       If you think this is ok, I will send V2 for you. If you think these
>> change is meaningless,
> OK, it's a minor tidy up, so lets go with that, or perhaps this is even tidier?
> Assuming types of ret and irq are appropriate (I've not checked!)
>
>
> 	ret = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> 	if (ret)
> 		goto err_clk_unprepare;
>
> 	priv->irq = ret;
>
Thanks for your reply, ret or irq or priv->irq are all appropriate, and 
the changes of mine maybe traditional.

I will send v2 for you like your changes.

Thank you very much.

Tang Bin


>> just dropped this.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Tang Bin
>>
>>
>>
>>



_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel