Date:   Wed, 4 Jul 2018 11:11:02 +0100
From:   Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:     Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
Cc:     Enric Balletbo Serra <eballetbo@...il.com>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>, chenjh@...k-chips.com,
        Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@...il.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        sboyd@...nel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-input@...r.kernel.org, mikko.mutanen@...rohmeurope.com,
        heikki.haikola@...rohmeurope.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] mfd: bd71837: mfd driver for ROHM BD71837 PMIC

On Wed, 04 Jul 2018, Matti Vaittinen wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 11:39:11AM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 11:26:00AM +0200, Enric Balletbo Serra wrote:
> > > Missatge de Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com> del
> > > dia dv., 29 de juny 2018 a les 11:47:
> > > 
> > > Now that you use devm calls and you don't need to unwind things I
> > > think is better to use plain returns. So,
> > > 
> > > return -ENOMEM;
> > 
> > I have never really understood why use of gotos in error handling is
> > discouraged.

They're not.

> > Personally I would always choose single point of exit from
> > a function when it is simple enough to achieve (like in this case). I've
> > written and fixed way too many functions which leak resources or
> > accidentally keep a lock when exiting from error branches. But I know
> > many colleagues like you who prefer not to have gotos but  in place returns
> > instead. So I guess I'll leave the final call on this to the one who is
> > maintainer for this code. And it is true there is no things to unwind
> > now - which does not mean that next updater won't add such. But as I
> > said, I know plenty of people share your view - and even though I rather
> > maintain code with only one exit the final call is on subsystem maintainer
> > here.

Please use gotos in the error path.

IMO, it's the nicest way to unwind (as you call it).

> Actually, If it was completely my call the probe would look something
> like this:
> 
> +static int bd71837_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
> +                           const struct i2c_device_id *id)
> +{
> +       struct bd71837 *bd71837;
> +       struct bd71837_board *board_info;
> +       int gpio_intr = 0;
> +
> +       const char *errstr = "No IRQ configured";
> +       int ret = -EINVAL;
> +
> +       bd71837 = devm_kzalloc(&i2c->dev, sizeof(struct bd71837), GFP_KERNEL);
> +
> +       if (bd71837 == NULL)
> +               return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +       board_info = dev_get_platdata(&i2c->dev);
> +
> +       if (!board_info)
> +               gpio_intr = i2c->irq;
> +       else
> +               gpio_intr = board_info->gpio_intr;
> +
> +       if (!gpio_intr)
> +               goto err_out;
> +
> +       i2c_set_clientdata(i2c, bd71837);
> +       bd71837->dev = &i2c->dev;
> +       bd71837->i2c_client = i2c;
> +       bd71837->chip_irq = gpio_intr;
> +
> +       errstr = "regmap initialization failed";
> +
> +       bd71837->regmap = devm_regmap_init_i2c(i2c, &bd71837_regmap_config);
> +       ret = PTR_ERR(bd71837->regmap);
> +       if (IS_ERR(bd71837->regmap))
> +               goto err_out;
> +
> +       errstr = "Read BD71837_REG_DEVICE failed";
> +       ret = bd71837_reg_read(bd71837, BD71837_REG_REV);
> +       if (ret < 0)
> +               goto err_out;
> +
> +       errstr = "Failed to add irq_chip";
> +       ret = devm_regmap_add_irq_chip(&i2c->dev, bd71837->regmap,
> +                                      bd71837->chip_irq, IRQF_ONESHOT, 0,
> +                                      &bd71837_irq_chip, &bd71837->irq_data);
> +       if (ret < 0)
> +               goto err_out;
> +
> +       errstr = "Failed to configure button short press timeout";
> +       ret = regmap_update_bits(bd71837->regmap,
> +                                BD71837_REG_PWRONCONFIG0,
> +                                BD718XX_PWRBTN_PRESS_DURATION_MASK,
> +                                BD718XX_PWRBTN_SHORT_PRESS_10MS);
> +       if (ret < 0)
> +               goto err_out;
> +
> +       /* According to BD71847 datasheet the HW default for long press
> +        * detection is 10ms. So lets change it to 10 sec so we can actually
> +        * get the short push and allow gracefull shut down
> +        */
> +       ret = regmap_update_bits(bd71837->regmap,
> +                                BD71837_REG_PWRONCONFIG1,
> +                                BD718XX_PWRBTN_PRESS_DURATION_MASK,
> +                                BD718XX_PWRBTN_LONG_PRESS_10S);
> +
> +       errstr = "Failed to configure button long press timeout";
> +       if (ret < 0)
> +               goto err_out;
> +
> +       btns[0].irq = regmap_irq_get_virq(bd71837->irq_data,
> +                                         BD71837_INT_PWRBTN_S);
> +
> +       errstr = "Failed to get the IRQ";
> +       ret = btns[0].irq;
> +       if (btns[0].irq < 0)
> +               goto err_out;
> +
> +       errstr = "Failed to create subdevices";
> +       ret = devm_mfd_add_devices(bd71837->dev, PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO,
> +                                  bd71837_mfd_cells,
> +                                  ARRAY_SIZE(bd71837_mfd_cells), NULL, 0,
> +                                  regmap_irq_get_domain(bd71837->irq_data));
> +       if (ret) {
> +err_out:
> +               if (errstr)
> +                       dev_err(&i2c->dev, "%s (%d)\n", errstr, ret);
> +       }
> +
> +       return ret;
> +}
> 
> What do you think of this? To my eye it is nice. It keeps single point of
> exit and introduces only simple if-statements without the need of curly
> brackets. And finally the error prints string works as a comment too.
> I've seen bunch of constructs like this on the networking side but I
> have no idea if this is frowned on this subsystem =) Oh, and probe abowe
> is just to illustrate the idea, I did not even try compiling it yet.

That is horrible.  I nearly vomited on my keyboard.  It doesn't flow
anywhere nearly as nicely has sorting out all of the error handling
*after* it has been detected.  You're sacrificing readability to save
a single line and do not save any *actual* lines of code, only a brace.

Landing a goto in the middle of a statement is messy and unsightly.

What happens when you have some resources to free?  The last few lines
will become very messy, very quickly.

Nit: "something == NULL" is better written as "!something".
Nit: Please use proper multi-line comments as per the Coding Style.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

Powered by blists - more mailing lists