Re: [PATCH v6] staging: vt6656: add error code handling to unused variable

[Stefano Brivio]

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:46:13 -0700
"John B. Wyatt IV" <jbwyatt4@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Add error code handling to unused 'ret' variable that was never used.
> Return an error code from functions called within vnt_radio_power_on.
> 
> Issue reported by coccinelle (coccicheck).
> 
> Suggested-by: Quentin Deslandes <quentin.deslandes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Suggested-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Quentin Deslandes <quentin.deslandes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: John B. Wyatt IV <jbwyatt4@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> v6: Forgot to add all the v5 code to commit.
> 
> v5: Remove Suggested-by: Julia Lawall above seperator line.
> 	Remove break; statement in switch block.
> 	break; removal checked by both gcc compile and checkpatch.
> 	Suggested by Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> v4: Move Suggested-by: Julia Lawall above seperator line.
>     Add Reviewed-by tag as requested by Quentin Deslandes.
> 
> v3: Forgot to add v2 code changes to commit.
> 
> v2: Replace goto statements with return.
>     Remove last if check because it was unneeded.
>     Suggested-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@xxxxxxxx>
> 
>  drivers/staging/vt6656/card.c | 20 ++++++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6656/card.c b/drivers/staging/vt6656/card.c
> index dc3ab10eb630..c947e8188384 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/vt6656/card.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6656/card.c
> @@ -723,9 +723,13 @@ int vnt_radio_power_on(struct vnt_private *priv)
>  {
>  	int ret = 0;
>  
> -	vnt_exit_deep_sleep(priv);
> +	ret = vnt_exit_deep_sleep(priv);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
>  
> -	vnt_mac_reg_bits_on(priv, MAC_REG_HOSTCR, HOSTCR_RXON);
> +	ret = vnt_mac_reg_bits_on(priv, MAC_REG_HOSTCR, HOSTCR_RXON);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
>  
>  	switch (priv->rf_type) {
>  	case RF_AL2230:
> @@ -734,14 +738,14 @@ int vnt_radio_power_on(struct vnt_private *priv)
>  	case RF_VT3226:
>  	case RF_VT3226D0:
>  	case RF_VT3342A0:
> -		vnt_mac_reg_bits_on(priv, MAC_REG_SOFTPWRCTL,
> -				    (SOFTPWRCTL_SWPE2 | SOFTPWRCTL_SWPE3));
> -		break;
> +		ret = vnt_mac_reg_bits_on(priv, MAC_REG_SOFTPWRCTL,
> +					  (SOFTPWRCTL_SWPE2 | 
> +					  SOFTPWRCTL_SWPE3));
>  	}
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;

Hmm, sorry, I haven't been clear enough I guess.

This is what you're doing:

if rf_type is not in that list:
- set some bits in a register
- did it fail? return
- did it fail? return
...

if rf_type is in that list:
- set some bits in a register
- did it fail? return
- set some other bits
- did it fail? return
...

Now, the "set some other bits" part is already selected depending on
rf_type. There's no need to check 'ret' otherwise, so you can move the
return just after setting 'ret', in the switch case.

With a check, because you don't want to return if ret == 0.

-- 
Stefano