diff mbox series

[v4,2/4] pwm: dwc: drop redundant error check

Message ID 20240219033835.11369-3-raag.jadav@intel.com
State New
Headers
Series DesignWare PWM improvements |

Commit Message

Raag Jadav Feb. 19, 2024, 3:38 a.m. UTC 
  pcim_iomap_table() fails only if pcim_iomap_regions() fails. No need to
check for failure if the latter is already successful.

Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@intel.com>
Tested-by: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com>
---
 drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c | 5 +----
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)

Comments

Uwe Kleine-König Feb. 19, 2024, 7:27 a.m. UTC | #1 
Hello,

On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 08:11:00AM +0100, Thorsten Scherer wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 09:08:33AM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > pcim_iomap_table() fails only if pcim_iomap_regions() fails. No need to
> > check for failure if the latter is already successful.
> > 
> > Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@intel.com>
> > Tested-by: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c | 5 +----
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c
> > index c0e586688e57..7dbb72c80ef5 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c
> > @@ -51,11 +51,8 @@ static int dwc_pwm_probe(struct pci_dev *pci, const struct pci_device_id *id)
> >  		return ret;
> >  	}
> >  
> > +	/* No need to check for failure, pcim_iomap_regions() does it for us. */
> 
> IMHO this comment could be omitted.

I like the comment (and even asked for it). Is it really only me who
doesn't know that after pcim_iomap_regions() calling pcim_iomap_table()
is unproblematic?

Best regards
Uwe
Thorsten Scherer Feb. 19, 2024, 8 a.m. UTC | #2 
Hello,

On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 08:11:01AM +0100, Thorsten Scherer wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 09:08:33AM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > pcim_iomap_table() fails only if pcim_iomap_regions() fails. No need to
> > check for failure if the latter is already successful.
> > 
> > Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@intel.com>
> > Tested-by: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c | 5 +----
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c
> > index c0e586688e57..7dbb72c80ef5 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c
> > @@ -51,11 +51,8 @@ static int dwc_pwm_probe(struct pci_dev *pci, const struct pci_device_id *id)
> >  		return ret;
> >  	}
> >  
> > +	/* No need to check for failure, pcim_iomap_regions() does it for us. */
> 
> IMHO this comment could be omitted.

I somehow overlooked the discussion in the v2.  Please ignore my
previous mail.

> >  	dwc->base = pcim_iomap_table(pci)[0];
> > -	if (!dwc->base) {
> > -		dev_err(dev, "Base address missing\n");
> > -		return -ENOMEM;
> > -	}
> >  
> >  	ret = devm_pwmchip_add(dev, chip);
> >  	if (ret)
> > -- 
> > 2.35.3
> > 
> > 
> 
> Best regards
> Thorsten

Best regards
Thorsten
Raag Jadav Feb. 19, 2024, 9:15 a.m. UTC | #3 
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 08:27:43AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 08:11:00AM +0100, Thorsten Scherer wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 09:08:33AM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > > pcim_iomap_table() fails only if pcim_iomap_regions() fails. No need to
> > > check for failure if the latter is already successful.
> > > 
> > > Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@intel.com>
> > > Tested-by: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c | 5 +----
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c
> > > index c0e586688e57..7dbb72c80ef5 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c
> > > @@ -51,11 +51,8 @@ static int dwc_pwm_probe(struct pci_dev *pci, const struct pci_device_id *id)
> > >  		return ret;
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > +	/* No need to check for failure, pcim_iomap_regions() does it for us. */
> > 
> > IMHO this comment could be omitted.
> 
> I like the comment (and even asked for it). Is it really only me who
> doesn't know that after pcim_iomap_regions() calling pcim_iomap_table()
> is unproblematic?

Neither did I :) (Check the v1 discussion)

Raag
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c
index c0e586688e57..7dbb72c80ef5 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c
@@ -51,11 +51,8 @@  static int dwc_pwm_probe(struct pci_dev *pci, const struct pci_device_id *id)
 		return ret;
 	}
 
+	/* No need to check for failure, pcim_iomap_regions() does it for us. */
 	dwc->base = pcim_iomap_table(pci)[0];
-	if (!dwc->base) {
-		dev_err(dev, "Base address missing\n");
-		return -ENOMEM;
-	}
 
 	ret = devm_pwmchip_add(dev, chip);
 	if (ret)