[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bda10bcc66aae96355e74c4739229d72bcc95b0d.camel@partner.samsung.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 15:00:38 +0200
From: Artur Świgoń <a.swigon@...tner.samsung.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
cw00.choi@...sung.com, myungjoo.ham@...sung.com,
inki.dae@...sung.com, sw0312.kim@...sung.com,
georgi.djakov@...aro.org, m.szyprowski@...sung.com,
Bartłomiej Żołnierkiewicz
<b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/11] devfreq: exynos-bus: Extract
exynos_bus_profile_init()
Hi,
On Wed, 2019-07-24 at 21:07 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 02:20:06PM +0200, Artur Świgoń wrote:
> > This patch adds a new static function, exynos_bus_profile_init(), extracted
> > from exynos_bus_probe().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Artur Świgoń <a.swigon@...tner.samsung.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/devfreq/exynos-bus.c | 106 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> > 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/devfreq/exynos-bus.c b/drivers/devfreq/exynos-bus.c
> > index d9f377912c10..d8f1efaf2d49 100644
> > --- a/drivers/devfreq/exynos-bus.c
> > +++ b/drivers/devfreq/exynos-bus.c
> > @@ -372,12 +372,69 @@ static int exynos_bus_parse_of(struct device_node *np,
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > +static int exynos_bus_profile_init(struct exynos_bus *bus,
> > + struct devfreq_dev_profile *profile)
> > +{
> > + struct device *dev = bus->dev;
> > + struct devfreq_simple_ondemand_data *ondemand_data;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + /* Initialize the struct profile and governor data for parent device */
> > + profile->polling_ms = 50;
> > + profile->target = exynos_bus_target;
> > + profile->get_dev_status = exynos_bus_get_dev_status;
> > + profile->exit = exynos_bus_exit;
> > +
> > + ondemand_data = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*ondemand_data), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!ondemand_data) {
> > + ret = -ENOMEM;
> > + goto err;
>
> Just return proper error code. Less lines, obvious code since you do not
> have any cleanup in error path.
I was advised to avoid modifying code being moved (in one patch). I do make
changes in these places in patch 04/11, i.e. change the original label 'err' to
'out'. What's your opinion on making the proposed changes to patches 01 and 02
(s/goto err/return ret/) in patch 04 instead?
> > +
> > + /* Register opp_notifier to catch the change of OPP */
> > + ret = devm_devfreq_register_opp_notifier(dev, bus->devfreq);
> > + if (ret < 0) {
> > + dev_err(dev, "failed to register opp notifier\n");
> > + goto err;
>
> The same - return err.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
Best regards,
--
Artur Świgoń
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
Powered by blists - more mailing lists