On 12/07/16 05:34, James Liao wrote:

Hi Matthias,

On Mon, 2016-07-11 at 15:10 +0200, Matthias Brugger wrote:

quoted

On 11/07/16 10:56, James Liao wrote:

[...]

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

@@ -467,28 +386,54 @@ static int scpsys_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
   			if (PTR_ERR(scpd->supply) == -ENODEV)
   				scpd->supply = NULL;
   			else
-				return PTR_ERR(scpd->supply);
+				return ERR_CAST(scpd->supply);
   		}
   	}

-	pd_data->num_domains = NUM_DOMAINS;
+	pd_data->num_domains = num;

-	for (i = 0; i < NUM_DOMAINS; i++) {
+	init_clks(pdev, clk);
+
+	for (i = 0; i < num; i++) {
   		struct scp_domain *scpd = &scp->domains[i];
   		struct generic_pm_domain *genpd = &scpd->genpd;
   		const struct scp_domain_data *data = &scp_domain_data[i];

+		for (j = 0; j < MAX_CLKS && data->clk_id[j]; j++) {
+			struct clk *c = clk[data->clk_id[j]];
+
+			if (IS_ERR(c)) {
+				dev_err(&pdev->dev, "%s: clk unavailable\n",
+					data->name);
+				return ERR_CAST(c);
+			}
+
+			scpd->clk[j] = c;

Put this in the else branch. Apart from that is there any reason you

Do you mean to change like this?

	if (IS_ERR(c)) {
		...
		return ERR_CAST(c);
	} else {
		scpd->clk[j] = c;
	}

checkpatch.pl will warn for above code due to it returns in 'if' branch.

I tried that on top of next-20160706 and it checkpatch didn't throw any
warning. Which kernel version are based on?

I don't remember which version of checkpatch warn on this pattern. This
patch series develop across several kernel versions.

We as the kernel community develop against master or linux-next. We only
care about older kernel version in the sense that we intent hard not to
break any userspace/kernel or firmware/kernel interfaces. Apart from
that it's up to every individual to backport patches from mainline
kernel to his respective version. But that's nothing the community as a
hole can take care of.

quoted

So do you prefer to put "scpd->clk[j] = c;" into 'else' branch?

Yes please :)

Yingjoe had tested in the latest checkpatch.pl and it showed checkpatch
warn on the else-branch. He had replied the results in previous email.

Yes you are right. Not sure what I was testing. Sorry for that.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

moved the for up in the function? If not, I would prefer not to move it,
to make it easier to read the diff.

The new 'for' block are far different from original one. And I think
it's easy to read if we keep simple assign statements in the same block.

It's different in the sense that it checks if struct clk *c is an error.
I don't see the reason why we need to move it up in the file.
It's not too important but I would prefer not to move it if there is no
reason.

I think I may misunderstand your comments. Which 'for' block did you
mention for? 'for (i = 0; i < num ...' or 'for (j = 0; j < MAX_CLKS
&& ...' ?

The 'for(i)' exists in original code, this patch just change its counter
from 'NUM_DOMAINS' to 'num'. The 'for(j)' is a new for-block, so it was
not moved from other blocks.

for (j = 0; j < MAX_CLKS... is present in the actual scpsys_probe in
linux-next (line 485 as of today). This patch moves this for a few lines
up, to be precise before executing this code sequence:
<code>
pd_data->domains[i] = genpd;
scpd->scp = scp;

scpd->data = data;
</code>

AFAIK there is no reason to do so. It adds unnecessary complexity to the
patch. So please fix this together with the other comments you got.

I see. So you prefer to put the for(j < MAX_CLKS) after 'scpd->data =
data' right? I can change it in next patch.

Ok, thanks.

Regards,
Matthias