soc: ti: Simplify with scoped for each OF child loop and dev_err_probe()

[PATCH -next v2 2/4] soc: ti: knav_dma: Use dev_err_probe() to simplfy code

Posted by Jinjie Ruan 1 year, 5 months ago

Use the dev_err_probe() helper to simplify error handling
during probe.

Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
---
v2:
- Split into 2 patches.
---
 drivers/soc/ti/knav_dma.c | 12 ++++--------
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/soc/ti/knav_dma.c b/drivers/soc/ti/knav_dma.c
index 15e41d3a5e22..eeec422a46f0 100644
--- a/drivers/soc/ti/knav_dma.c
+++ b/drivers/soc/ti/knav_dma.c
@@ -708,17 +708,13 @@ static int knav_dma_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	struct device_node *node = pdev->dev.of_node;
 	int ret = 0;
 
-	if (!node) {
-		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "could not find device info\n");
-		return -EINVAL;
-	}
+	if (!node)
+		return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, -EINVAL, "could not find device info\n");
 
 	kdev = devm_kzalloc(dev,
 			sizeof(struct knav_dma_pool_device), GFP_KERNEL);
-	if (!kdev) {
-		dev_err(dev, "could not allocate driver mem\n");
-		return -ENOMEM;
-	}
+	if (!kdev)
+		return dev_err_probe(dev, -ENOMEM, "could not allocate driver mem\n");
 
 	kdev->dev = dev;
 	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&kdev->list);
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH -next v2 2/4] soc: ti: knav_dma: Use dev_err_probe() to simplfy code

Posted by Nishanth Menon 1 year, 5 months ago

On 14:32-20240830, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
> Use the dev_err_probe() helper to simplify error handling
> during probe.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
> ---
> v2:
> - Split into 2 patches.
> ---
>  drivers/soc/ti/knav_dma.c | 12 ++++--------
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/ti/knav_dma.c b/drivers/soc/ti/knav_dma.c
> index 15e41d3a5e22..eeec422a46f0 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/ti/knav_dma.c
> +++ b/drivers/soc/ti/knav_dma.c
> @@ -708,17 +708,13 @@ static int knav_dma_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	struct device_node *node = pdev->dev.of_node;
>  	int ret = 0;
>  
> -	if (!node) {
> -		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "could not find device info\n");
> -		return -EINVAL;
> -	}
> +	if (!node)
> +		return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, -EINVAL, "could not find device info\n");
>  
>  	kdev = devm_kzalloc(dev,
>  			sizeof(struct knav_dma_pool_device), GFP_KERNEL);
> -	if (!kdev) {
> -		dev_err(dev, "could not allocate driver mem\n");
> -		return -ENOMEM;
> -	}
> +	if (!kdev)
> +		return dev_err_probe(dev, -ENOMEM, "could not allocate driver mem\n");

These make no sense to me :( -> just using dev_err_probe when there is
no chance of -EPROBE_DEFER ?

>  
>  	kdev->dev = dev;
>  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&kdev->list);
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3  1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D

Re: [PATCH -next v2 2/4] soc: ti: knav_dma: Use dev_err_probe() to simplfy code

Posted by Krzysztof Kozlowski 1 year, 5 months ago

On 30/08/2024 12:31, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 14:32-20240830, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
>> Use the dev_err_probe() helper to simplify error handling
>> during probe.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> v2:
>> - Split into 2 patches.
>> ---
>>  drivers/soc/ti/knav_dma.c | 12 ++++--------
>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/ti/knav_dma.c b/drivers/soc/ti/knav_dma.c
>> index 15e41d3a5e22..eeec422a46f0 100644
>> --- a/drivers/soc/ti/knav_dma.c
>> +++ b/drivers/soc/ti/knav_dma.c
>> @@ -708,17 +708,13 @@ static int knav_dma_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>  	struct device_node *node = pdev->dev.of_node;
>>  	int ret = 0;
>>  
>> -	if (!node) {
>> -		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "could not find device info\n");
>> -		return -EINVAL;
>> -	}
>> +	if (!node)
>> +		return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, -EINVAL, "could not find device info\n");
>>  
>>  	kdev = devm_kzalloc(dev,
>>  			sizeof(struct knav_dma_pool_device), GFP_KERNEL);
>> -	if (!kdev) {
>> -		dev_err(dev, "could not allocate driver mem\n");
>> -		return -ENOMEM;
>> -	}
>> +	if (!kdev)
>> +		return dev_err_probe(dev, -ENOMEM, "could not allocate driver mem\n");
> 
> These make no sense to me :( -> just using dev_err_probe when there is
> no chance of -EPROBE_DEFER ?

Well, this does not make sense from other point of view - memory
allocation errors should have any printks...

This patchset - like several others from Jinjie - is some sort of
automation without careful consideration and without thinking whether
code makes sense.

Therefore I suggest to review it thoroughly and do not trust the
"innocent" look of such changes.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH -next v2 2/4] soc: ti: knav_dma: Use dev_err_probe() to simplfy code

Posted by Krzysztof Kozlowski 1 year, 5 months ago

On 30/08/2024 12:36, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 30/08/2024 12:31, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>> On 14:32-20240830, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
>>> Use the dev_err_probe() helper to simplify error handling
>>> during probe.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
>>> ---
>>> v2:
>>> - Split into 2 patches.
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/soc/ti/knav_dma.c | 12 ++++--------
>>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/ti/knav_dma.c b/drivers/soc/ti/knav_dma.c
>>> index 15e41d3a5e22..eeec422a46f0 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/soc/ti/knav_dma.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/soc/ti/knav_dma.c
>>> @@ -708,17 +708,13 @@ static int knav_dma_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>  	struct device_node *node = pdev->dev.of_node;
>>>  	int ret = 0;
>>>  
>>> -	if (!node) {
>>> -		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "could not find device info\n");
>>> -		return -EINVAL;
>>> -	}
>>> +	if (!node)
>>> +		return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, -EINVAL, "could not find device info\n");
>>>  
>>>  	kdev = devm_kzalloc(dev,
>>>  			sizeof(struct knav_dma_pool_device), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> -	if (!kdev) {
>>> -		dev_err(dev, "could not allocate driver mem\n");
>>> -		return -ENOMEM;
>>> -	}
>>> +	if (!kdev)
>>> +		return dev_err_probe(dev, -ENOMEM, "could not allocate driver mem\n");
>>
>> These make no sense to me :( -> just using dev_err_probe when there is
>> no chance of -EPROBE_DEFER ?
> 
> Well, this does not make sense from other point of view - memory
> allocation errors should have any printks...

s/should/should not/

obviously :)

> 
> This patchset - like several others from Jinjie - is some sort of
> automation without careful consideration and without thinking whether
> code makes sense.
> 
> Therefore I suggest to review it thoroughly and do not trust the
> "innocent" look of such changes.


Best regards,
Krzysztof