[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3527f3b8-225d-6e5a-dd8a-0421d475f70b@denx.de>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 21:46:44 +0200
From: Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>
To: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
Cc: Christophe Kerello <christophe.kerello@...com>, richard@....at,
vigneshr@...com, lee.jones@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
mark.rutland@....com, tony@...mide.com,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/12] mtd: rawnand: stm32_fmc2: manage all errors
cases at probe time
On 4/27/20 8:08 PM, Miquel Raynal wrote:
[...]
>>>> /* FMC2 init routine */
>>>> stm32_fmc2_init(fmc2);
>>>> @@ -1997,7 +2001,7 @@ static int stm32_fmc2_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> /* Scan to find existence of the device */
>>>> ret = nand_scan(chip, nand->ncs);
>>>> if (ret)
>>>> - goto err_scan;
>>>> + goto err_dma_setup;
>>>>
>>>> ret = mtd_device_register(mtd, NULL, 0);
>>>> if (ret)
>>>> @@ -2010,7 +2014,7 @@ static int stm32_fmc2_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> err_device_register:
>>>> nand_cleanup(chip);
>>>>
>>>> -err_scan:
>>>> +err_dma_setup:
>>>> if (fmc2->dma_ecc_ch)
>>>> dma_release_channel(fmc2->dma_ecc_ch);
>>>> if (fmc2->dma_tx_ch)
>>>> @@ -2021,6 +2025,7 @@ static int stm32_fmc2_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> sg_free_table(&fmc2->dma_data_sg);
>>>> sg_free_table(&fmc2->dma_ecc_sg);
>>>>
>>>> +err_clk_disable:
>>>> clk_disable_unprepare(fmc2->clk);
>>>>
>>>> return ret;
>>>
>>> I didn't spot it during my earlier reviews but I really prefer using
>>> labels explaining what you do than having the same name of the function
>>> which failed. This way you don't have to rework the error path when
>>> you handle an additional error.
>>>
>>> So, would you mind doing this in two steps:
>>>
>>> 1/
>>> Replace
>>>
>>> err_scan:
>>>
>>> with, eg.
>>>
>>> release_dma_objs:
>>
>> The ^err_ prefix in failpath labels is useful, since it's easily
>> possible to match on it with regexes ; not so much on arbitrary label name.
>
> I guess so, but is it actually useful to catch labels in a regex? (real
> question)
I find it useful to have a unified way to find those labels, e.g.
err_because_foo:
err_because_bar:
err_last_one:
is much nicer than:
foo_failed:
bar_also_failed:
its_total_randomness:
> Any way I suppose catching ":\n" is already a good approximation to
> find labels?
Not very practical with git grep (^err.*: works nicely though)
>> btw would it make sense to split the first three patches of this series
>> into a separate series ? This rawnand part seems more like an unrelated
>> cleanup.
>
> As it seems that the MFD discussion can take longer, then I would say
> yes, at least for the cleanup/misc changes part.
Right
--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
Powered by blists - more mailing lists