Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] pwm: dwc: drop redundant error check

[Uwe Kleine-König]

Hello Andy,

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 03:36:12PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 10:22:57AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > If a driver author knows it while writing the code, it's obvious. But if
> > the driver author looks again in 2 years or someone else (e.g. me with
> > the PWM maintainer hat on and with little pci experience) that knowledge
> > might be faded.
> 
> This is widely used pattern. Anybody who works with Git should know how
> to use `git grep` tool. If in doubts, always can ask in the mailing lists.

IMHO you're assuming to much. If someone sees this pattern and quickly
looks at the implementation of pcim_iomap_table() they might (as I did)
conclude that this call should be error checked. If they send a patch in
say 2 years I think I won't remember this discussion/patch and happily
accept this patch. And I probably won't get enough doubts to start
grepping around.

> I still consider it redundant.
> 
> P.S. That's what you call "bikeshedding" (done by yourself here)?

I can understand that you consider that bikeshedding given that for you
it's obvious that the second function cannot fail. For me it's not and I
take this as a hint that it's not obvious for everyone.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature