[PATCH v2 04/20] pinctrl: starfive: Use scope based of_node_put() cleanups
Markus Elfring
Markus.Elfring at web.de
Tue May 28 00:27:27 AEST 2024
> Use scope based of_node_put() cleanup to simplify code.
I see opportunities to improve affected function implementations another bit.
…
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/starfive/pinctrl-starfive-jh7100.c
…
> @@ -543,18 +540,18 @@ static int starfive_dt_node_to_map(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
> pins = devm_kcalloc(dev, npins, sizeof(*pins), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!pins) {
> ret = -ENOMEM;
> - goto put_child;
> + goto free_map;
> }
>
> pinmux = devm_kcalloc(dev, npins, sizeof(*pinmux), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!pinmux) {
> ret = -ENOMEM;
> - goto put_child;
> + goto free_map;
> }
…
> @@ -623,8 +620,6 @@ static int starfive_dt_node_to_map(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
> mutex_unlock(&sfp->mutex);
> return 0;
>
> -put_child:
> - of_node_put(child);
> free_map:
> pinctrl_utils_free_map(pctldev, map, nmaps);
> mutex_unlock(&sfp->mutex);
…
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/starfive/pinctrl-starfive-jh7110.c
…
> @@ -175,18 +175,18 @@ static int jh7110_dt_node_to_map(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
> pins = devm_kcalloc(dev, npins, sizeof(*pins), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!pins) {
> ret = -ENOMEM;
> - goto put_child;
> + goto free_map;
> }
>
> pinmux = devm_kcalloc(dev, npins, sizeof(*pinmux), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!pinmux) {
> ret = -ENOMEM;
> - goto put_child;
> + goto free_map;
> }
…
> @@ -233,8 +233,6 @@ static int jh7110_dt_node_to_map(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
> *num_maps = nmaps;
> return 0;
>
> -put_child:
> - of_node_put(child);
> free_map:
> pinctrl_utils_free_map(pctldev, map, nmaps);
> mutex_unlock(&sfp->mutex);
1. Exception handling is repeated a few times also according to memory allocation failures.
How do you think about to use a corresponding label like “e_nomem”
so that another bit of duplicate source code can be avoided?
https://wiki.sei.cmu.edu/confluence/display/c/MEM12-C.+Consider+using+a+goto+chain+when+leaving+a+function+on+error+when+using+and+releasing+resources
2. Will development interests grow for the usage of a statement like “guard(mutex)(&sfp->mutex);”?
Regards,
Markus
More information about the Linux-aspeed
mailing list