Move the call to platform_get_irq() earlier in the probe function
and check for its return value: if no interrupt is specified, it
wouldn't make sense to try to call devm_request_irq() so, in that
case, we can simply return early.

Moving the platform_get_irq() call also makes it possible to use
one less goto, as clocks aren't required at that stage.

Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>
Reviewed-by: Nícolas F. R. A. Prado <nfraprado@collabora.com>
Tested-by: Nícolas F. R. A. Prado <nfraprado@collabora.com>
---
 drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c | 5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
index 852514366f1f..332cbcabc299 100644
--- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
+++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
@@ -2204,6 +2204,10 @@ static int pwrap_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	if (!wrp)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
+	irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
+	if (irq < 0)
+		return irq;
+
 	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, wrp);
 
 	wrp->master = of_device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
@@ -2316,7 +2320,6 @@ static int pwrap_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	if (HAS_CAP(wrp->master->caps, PWRAP_CAP_INT1_EN))
 		pwrap_writel(wrp, wrp->master->int1_en_all, PWRAP_INT1_EN);
 
-	irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
 	ret = devm_request_irq(wrp->dev, irq, pwrap_interrupt,
 			       IRQF_TRIGGER_HIGH,
 			       "mt-pmic-pwrap", wrp);
-- 
2.35.1

On 16/05/2022 14:46, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> Move the call to platform_get_irq() earlier in the probe function
> and check for its return value: if no interrupt is specified, it
> wouldn't make sense to try to call devm_request_irq() so, in that
> case, we can simply return early.
> 
> Moving the platform_get_irq() call also makes it possible to use
> one less goto, as clocks aren't required at that stage.
> 
> Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>
> Reviewed-by: Nícolas F. R. A. Prado <nfraprado@collabora.com>
> Tested-by: Nícolas F. R. A. Prado <nfraprado@collabora.com>
> ---
>   drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c | 5 ++++-
>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
> index 852514366f1f..332cbcabc299 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
> +++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
> @@ -2204,6 +2204,10 @@ static int pwrap_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>   	if (!wrp)
>   		return -ENOMEM;
>   
> +	irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> +	if (irq < 0)
> +		return irq;
> +
>   	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, wrp);
>   
>   	wrp->master = of_device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
> @@ -2316,7 +2320,6 @@ static int pwrap_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>   	if (HAS_CAP(wrp->master->caps, PWRAP_CAP_INT1_EN))
>   		pwrap_writel(wrp, wrp->master->int1_en_all, PWRAP_INT1_EN);
>   
> -	irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);

For better readability of the code I'd prefer to keep platform_get_irq next to 
devm_request_irq. I understand that you did this change so that you don't have 
to code
if (irq < 0) {
     ret = irq;
     goto err_out2;
}

Or do I miss something?

Regards,
Matthias

>   	ret = devm_request_irq(wrp->dev, irq, pwrap_interrupt,
>   			       IRQF_TRIGGER_HIGH,
>   			       "mt-pmic-pwrap", wrp);

Il 17/05/22 11:18, Matthias Brugger ha scritto:
> 
> 
> On 16/05/2022 14:46, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>> Move the call to platform_get_irq() earlier in the probe function
>> and check for its return value: if no interrupt is specified, it
>> wouldn't make sense to try to call devm_request_irq() so, in that
>> case, we can simply return early.
>>
>> Moving the platform_get_irq() call also makes it possible to use
>> one less goto, as clocks aren't required at that stage.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Nícolas F. R. A. Prado <nfraprado@collabora.com>
>> Tested-by: Nícolas F. R. A. Prado <nfraprado@collabora.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c | 5 ++++-
>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c 
>> b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
>> index 852514366f1f..332cbcabc299 100644
>> --- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
>> +++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
>> @@ -2204,6 +2204,10 @@ static int pwrap_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>       if (!wrp)
>>           return -ENOMEM;
>> +    irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>> +    if (irq < 0)
>> +        return irq;
>> +
>>       platform_set_drvdata(pdev, wrp);
>>       wrp->master = of_device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
>> @@ -2316,7 +2320,6 @@ static int pwrap_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>       if (HAS_CAP(wrp->master->caps, PWRAP_CAP_INT1_EN))
>>           pwrap_writel(wrp, wrp->master->int1_en_all, PWRAP_INT1_EN);
>> -    irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> 
> For better readability of the code I'd prefer to keep platform_get_irq next to 
> devm_request_irq. I understand that you did this change so that you don't have to code
> if (irq < 0) {
>      ret = irq;
>      goto err_out2;
> }
> 
> Or do I miss something?
> 

That's for the sake of reducing gotos in the code... but there's a bigger
picture that I haven't explained in this commit and that will come later
because I currently don't have the necessary time to perform a "decent"
testing.

As I was explaining - the bigger pictures implies adding a new function for
clock teardown, that we will add as a devm action:

devm_add_action_or_reset(&pdev->dev, pwrap_clk_disable_unprepare, wrp)

...so that we will be able to remove *all* gotos from the probe function.

Sounds good?

Cheers,
Angelo

On 17/05/2022 11:34, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> Il 17/05/22 11:18, Matthias Brugger ha scritto:
>>
>>
>> On 16/05/2022 14:46, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>>> Move the call to platform_get_irq() earlier in the probe function
>>> and check for its return value: if no interrupt is specified, it
>>> wouldn't make sense to try to call devm_request_irq() so, in that
>>> case, we can simply return early.
>>>
>>> Moving the platform_get_irq() call also makes it possible to use
>>> one less goto, as clocks aren't required at that stage.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
>>> <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Nícolas F. R. A. Prado <nfraprado@collabora.com>
>>> Tested-by: Nícolas F. R. A. Prado <nfraprado@collabora.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c | 5 ++++-
>>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c 
>>> b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
>>> index 852514366f1f..332cbcabc299 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
>>> @@ -2204,6 +2204,10 @@ static int pwrap_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>       if (!wrp)
>>>           return -ENOMEM;
>>> +    irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>>> +    if (irq < 0)
>>> +        return irq;
>>> +
>>>       platform_set_drvdata(pdev, wrp);
>>>       wrp->master = of_device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
>>> @@ -2316,7 +2320,6 @@ static int pwrap_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>       if (HAS_CAP(wrp->master->caps, PWRAP_CAP_INT1_EN))
>>>           pwrap_writel(wrp, wrp->master->int1_en_all, PWRAP_INT1_EN);
>>> -    irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>>
>> For better readability of the code I'd prefer to keep platform_get_irq next to 
>> devm_request_irq. I understand that you did this change so that you don't have 
>> to code
>> if (irq < 0) {
>>      ret = irq;
>>      goto err_out2;
>> }
>>
>> Or do I miss something?
>>
> 
> That's for the sake of reducing gotos in the code... but there's a bigger
> picture that I haven't explained in this commit and that will come later
> because I currently don't have the necessary time to perform a "decent"
> testing.
> 
> As I was explaining - the bigger pictures implies adding a new function for
> clock teardown, that we will add as a devm action:
> 
> devm_add_action_or_reset(&pdev->dev, pwrap_clk_disable_unprepare, wrp)
> 
> ...so that we will be able to remove *all* gotos from the probe function.
> 
> Sounds good?
> 

Sounds good, but that means we could get rid of the goto as well. Anyway I 
prefer to have platform_get_irq next to devm_request_irq. If we can get rid of 
the goto in the future, great.

Regards,
Matthias

Il 17/05/22 11:49, Matthias Brugger ha scritto:
> 
> 
> On 17/05/2022 11:34, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>> Il 17/05/22 11:18, Matthias Brugger ha scritto:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16/05/2022 14:46, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>>>> Move the call to platform_get_irq() earlier in the probe function
>>>> and check for its return value: if no interrupt is specified, it
>>>> wouldn't make sense to try to call devm_request_irq() so, in that
>>>> case, we can simply return early.
>>>>
>>>> Moving the platform_get_irq() call also makes it possible to use
>>>> one less goto, as clocks aren't required at that stage.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
>>>> <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Nícolas F. R. A. Prado <nfraprado@collabora.com>
>>>> Tested-by: Nícolas F. R. A. Prado <nfraprado@collabora.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c | 5 ++++-
>>>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c 
>>>> b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
>>>> index 852514366f1f..332cbcabc299 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
>>>> @@ -2204,6 +2204,10 @@ static int pwrap_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>       if (!wrp)
>>>>           return -ENOMEM;
>>>> +    irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>>>> +    if (irq < 0)
>>>> +        return irq;
>>>> +
>>>>       platform_set_drvdata(pdev, wrp);
>>>>       wrp->master = of_device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
>>>> @@ -2316,7 +2320,6 @@ static int pwrap_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>       if (HAS_CAP(wrp->master->caps, PWRAP_CAP_INT1_EN))
>>>>           pwrap_writel(wrp, wrp->master->int1_en_all, PWRAP_INT1_EN);
>>>> -    irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>>>
>>> For better readability of the code I'd prefer to keep platform_get_irq next to 
>>> devm_request_irq. I understand that you did this change so that you don't have 
>>> to code
>>> if (irq < 0) {
>>>      ret = irq;
>>>      goto err_out2;
>>> }
>>>
>>> Or do I miss something?
>>>
>>
>> That's for the sake of reducing gotos in the code... but there's a bigger
>> picture that I haven't explained in this commit and that will come later
>> because I currently don't have the necessary time to perform a "decent"
>> testing.
>>
>> As I was explaining - the bigger pictures implies adding a new function for
>> clock teardown, that we will add as a devm action:
>>
>> devm_add_action_or_reset(&pdev->dev, pwrap_clk_disable_unprepare, wrp)
>>
>> ...so that we will be able to remove *all* gotos from the probe function.
>>
>> Sounds good?
>>
> 
> Sounds good, but that means we could get rid of the goto as well. Anyway I prefer 
> to have platform_get_irq next to devm_request_irq. If we can get rid of the goto in 
> the future, great.

Oki, then I'll send a v4 and avoid to move that one elsewhere - will keep the goto
as well.

Looking back at it, effectively, it doesn't really make sense to move that call!

Cheers,
Angelo