[PATCH i2c-next] i2c: designware: Consolidate pci_free_irq_vectors to a single place

[PATCH i2c-next] i2c: designware: Consolidate pci_free_irq_vectors to a single place

[Dejin Zheng]

Consolidate pci_free_irq_vectors to a single place using "goto free_irq"
for simplify the code.

Signed-off-by: Dejin Zheng <zhengdejin5@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-pcidrv.c | 22 ++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-pcidrv.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-pcidrv.c
index 55c83a7a24f3..f0c82e91870a 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-pcidrv.c
+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-pcidrv.c
@@ -234,10 +234,8 @@ static int i2c_dw_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
 
 	if (controller->setup) {
 		r = controller->setup(pdev, controller);
-		if (r) {
-			pci_free_irq_vectors(pdev);
-			return r;
-		}
+		if (r)
+			goto free_irq;
 	}
 
 	i2c_dw_adjust_bus_speed(dev);
@@ -246,10 +244,8 @@ static int i2c_dw_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
 		i2c_dw_acpi_configure(&pdev->dev);
 
 	r = i2c_dw_validate_speed(dev);
-	if (r) {
-		pci_free_irq_vectors(pdev);
-		return r;
-	}
+	if (r)
+		goto free_irq;
 
 	i2c_dw_configure(dev);
 
@@ -269,10 +265,8 @@ static int i2c_dw_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
 	adap->nr = controller->bus_num;
 
 	r = i2c_dw_probe(dev);
-	if (r) {
-		pci_free_irq_vectors(pdev);
-		return r;
-	}
+	if (r)
+		goto free_irq;
 
 	pm_runtime_set_autosuspend_delay(&pdev->dev, 1000);
 	pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(&pdev->dev);
@@ -280,6 +274,10 @@ static int i2c_dw_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
 	pm_runtime_allow(&pdev->dev);
 
 	return 0;
+
+free_irq:
+	pci_free_irq_vectors(pdev);
+	return r;
 }
 
 static void i2c_dw_pci_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev)
-- 
2.25.0

Re: [PATCH i2c-next] i2c: designware: Consolidate pci_free_irq_vectors to a single place

[Jarkko Nikula]

On 2/14/21 8:45 AM, Dejin Zheng wrote:
> Consolidate pci_free_irq_vectors to a single place using "goto free_irq"
> for simplify the code.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dejin Zheng <zhengdejin5@gmail.com>
> ---
>   drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-pcidrv.c | 22 ++++++++++------------
>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
Acked-by: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com>

Re: [PATCH i2c-next] i2c: designware: Consolidate pci_free_irq_vectors to a single place

[Dejin Zheng]

On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 11:36:27AM +0200, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> On 2/14/21 8:45 AM, Dejin Zheng wrote:
> > Consolidate pci_free_irq_vectors to a single place using "goto free_irq"
> > for simplify the code.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Dejin Zheng <zhengdejin5@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-pcidrv.c | 22 ++++++++++------------
> >   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > 
> Acked-by: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com>

Jarkko, Thanks!

Dejin

Re: [PATCH i2c-next] i2c: designware: Consolidate pci_free_irq_vectors to a single place

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 02:45:29PM +0800, Dejin Zheng wrote:
> Consolidate pci_free_irq_vectors to a single place using "goto free_irq"
> for simplify the code.

One nit below, after addressing:
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>

...

> +free_irq:

It's quite confusing name. I would expect to see here (with current proposal)
*free_irq() call, but no, I don't see a such.

Please, change to something like
	err_pci_free_irq_vectors:
or alternatively
	err_free_irq_vectors:
however I think first one is disambiguous.

> +	pci_free_irq_vectors(pdev);
> +	return r;

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH i2c-next] i2c: designware: Consolidate pci_free_irq_vectors to a single place

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 03:20:40PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 02:45:29PM +0800, Dejin Zheng wrote:
> > Consolidate pci_free_irq_vectors to a single place using "goto free_irq"
> > for simplify the code.

FYI, you may rather to introduce a pcim_alloc_irq_vectors() and drop all these
calls altogether.

Note to everybody: PCIm is not ideal, but this piece is being called whenever
pcim_enable_device() makes resources manageable. The problem here is the
naming.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko