Re: [PATCH] media: i2c: ds90ub960: Delete duplicate source code in ub960_parse_dt_rxports()

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 09:02:41AM +0000, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 10:49:19AM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> > On 01/03/2024 10:46, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 08:46:25AM +0100, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > > > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 08:23:24 +0100
> > > > 
> > > > Avoid the specification of a duplicate fwnode_handle_put() call
> > > > in this function implementation.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >   drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c | 5 +----
> > > >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c
> > > > index ffe5f25f8647..eb708ed7b56e 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c
> > > > @@ -3486,10 +3486,7 @@ static int ub960_parse_dt_rxports(struct ub960_data *priv)
> > > >   		}
> > > >   	}
> > > > 
> > > > -	fwnode_handle_put(links_fwnode);
> > > > -
> > > > -	return 0;
> > > > -
> > > > +	ret = 0;
> > > 
> > > I think it'd be nicer to initialise ret as zero, then you can just drop the
> > > assignment above.

I think tearing apart the assignment and its actual user is not good.

> > I don't like successful execution entering error paths. That's why there's
> > the return 0.
> 
> It could be called a common cleanup path as what you really want to do here
> is to put the fwnode handle, independently of whether there was an error.
> I think the current code is of course fine, too.
> 
> Soon you can do
> 
> 	struct fwnode_handle *links_fwnode __free(fwnode_handle);
> 
> and forget about putting it (but you must need putting it).

Let's wait for the Jonathan's patches to land (v6.9-rc1 I hope) and then
we may modify drivers if needed.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko