Re: [PATCH v5] clk: Add write operation for clk_parent debugfs node

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 02:35:48PM +0300, Sam Protsenko wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 at 21:55, Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 09:21:58PM +0300, Sam Protsenko wrote:

...

> > > +#ifdef CLOCK_ALLOW_WRITE_DEBUGFS
> > > +     if (core->num_parents > 1)
> > > +             debugfs_create_file("clk_parent", 0644, root, core,
> > > +                                 &current_parent_rw_fops);
> > > +     else
> > > +#endif
> >
> > > +     {
> > > +             if (core->num_parents > 0)
> > > +                     debugfs_create_file("clk_parent", 0444, root, core,
> > > +                                         &current_parent_fops);
> > > +     }
> >
> > Currently there is no need to add the {} along with increased indentation
> > level. I.o.w. the 'else if' is valid in C.
> 
> Without those {} we have two bad options:
> 
>   1. When putting subsequent 'if' block on the same indentation level
> as 'else': looks ok-ish for my taste (though inconsistent with #ifdef
> code) and checkpatch swears:
> 
>         WARNING: suspect code indent for conditional statements (8, 8)
>         #82: FILE: drivers/clk/clk.c:3334:
>         +    else
>         [...]
>              if (core->num_parents > 0)

>   2. When adding 1 additional indentation level for subsequent 'if'
> block: looks plain ugly to me, inconsistent for the case when
> CLOCK_ALLOW_WRITE_DEBUGFS is not defined, but checkpatch is happy
> 
> I still think that the way I did that (with curly braces) is better
> one: it's consistent for all cases, looking ok, checkpatch is happy
> too. But isn't it hairsplitting? This particular case is not described
> in kernel coding style doc, so it's about personal preferences.
> 
> If it's still important to you -- please provide exact code snippet
> here (with indentations) for what you desire, I'll send v6. But
> frankly I'd rather spend my time on something more useful. This is
> minor patch, and I don't see any maintainers wishing to pull it yet.

I meant

#ifdef CLOCK_ALLOW_WRITE_DEBUGFS
	if (core->num_parents > 1)
		debugfs_create_file("clk_parent", 0644, root, core,
				    &current_parent_rw_fops);
	else
#endif
	if (core->num_parents > 0)
		debugfs_create_file("clk_parent", 0444, root, core,
				    &current_parent_fops);

But after looking at the present code, this variant is occurred 5x-10x
times less. So, only nit-picks then (note additional {} along with no
blank line):

#ifdef CLOCK_ALLOW_WRITE_DEBUGFS
	if (core->num_parents > 1) {
		debugfs_create_file("clk_parent", 0644, root, core,
				    &current_parent_rw_fops);
	} else
#endif
	{
		if (core->num_parents > 0)
			debugfs_create_file("clk_parent", 0444, root, core,
					    &current_parent_fops);
	}


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko