Re: [PATCH 2/6] PM / OPP: restructure _of_init_opp_table_v2()

From: Stephen Boyd
Date: Mon Aug 10 2015 - 20:31:42 EST

On 08/10/2015 05:23 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 10-08-15, 12:23, Stephen Boyd wrote:

drivers/base/power/opp.c | 21 ++++++++++-----------
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/base/power/opp.c b/drivers/base/power/opp.c
index 1daaa1a418a2..c9747fb192b1 100644
--- a/drivers/base/power/opp.c
+++ b/drivers/base/power/opp.c
@@ -1295,20 +1295,19 @@ static int _of_init_opp_table_v2(struct device *dev,
if (WARN_ON(!count))
goto out;
- if (!ret) {
- if (!dev_opp) {
- dev_opp = _find_device_opp(dev);
- if (WARN_ON(!dev_opp))
- goto out;
- }
- dev_opp->np = opp_np;
- dev_opp->shared_opp = of_property_read_bool(opp_np,
- "opp-shared");
- } else {
+ if (ret) {
+ goto out;
+ dev_opp = _find_device_opp(dev);
+ if (WARN_ON(!dev_opp))
+ goto out;
Doesn't ret = 0 in this case?
Because ret is already 0, juse see the above if (ret) check.

So ret is 0. I thought it was an error path, but I guess this is a warning path and we return 0 still?

Why not drop the goto and just
return some error code. Same for the goto out up above.
Actually yes, because we don't do anything special in goto now. But it
required more (unrelated) code changes, plus I didn't wanted to break
the 'return from single place' rule for this function, in case we
really need to free some resource or undo some work from the goto

But if you suggest/insist, then I will do it in a separate patch.

I am not insisting anything. But another patch to get rid of the goto sounds fine.

Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at