[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f541195e-7963-4970-9a1d-a3298226cdd5@web.de>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 22:11:20 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...ux.dev>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Bharat Kumar Gogada <bharat.kumar.gogada@...inx.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Michal Simek <michal.simek@....com>, Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
Thippeswamy Havalige <thippeswamy.havalige@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] PCI: xilinx-nwl: Clean up clock on probe
failure/removal
>> …
>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-xilinx-nwl.c
>> …
>>> @@ -817,11 +818,23 @@ static int nwl_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> err = nwl_pcie_enable_msi(pcie);
>>> if (err < 0) {
>>> dev_err(dev, "failed to enable MSI support: %d\n", err);
>>> - return err;
>>> + goto err_clk;
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> - return pci_host_probe(bridge);
>>> + err = pci_host_probe(bridge);
>>> +
>>> +err_clk:
>>> + if (err)
>>> + clk_disable_unprepare(pcie->clk);
>>
>> I suggest to use the label “disable_unprepare_clock” directly before this function call
>> (in the if branch) so that a duplicate check would be avoided after some error cases.
>
> Well if you want to avoid a check, we can just do
>
> err = pci_host_probe(bridge);
> if (!err)
> return 0;
>
> err_clk:
> ...
This design variant can also be reasonable.
Do any preferences matter here for label name selections?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists