Re: [PATCH v5] clk: Add write operation for clk_parent debugfs node

[Sam Protsenko]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 16:07, Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 02:35:48PM +0300, Sam Protsenko wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 at 21:55, Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 09:21:58PM +0300, Sam Protsenko wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > +#ifdef CLOCK_ALLOW_WRITE_DEBUGFS
> > > > +     if (core->num_parents > 1)
> > > > +             debugfs_create_file("clk_parent", 0644, root, core,
> > > > +                                 &current_parent_rw_fops);
> > > > +     else
> > > > +#endif
> > >
> > > > +     {
> > > > +             if (core->num_parents > 0)
> > > > +                     debugfs_create_file("clk_parent", 0444, root, core,
> > > > +                                         &current_parent_fops);
> > > > +     }
> > >
> > > Currently there is no need to add the {} along with increased indentation
> > > level. I.o.w. the 'else if' is valid in C.
> >
> > Without those {} we have two bad options:
> >
> >   1. When putting subsequent 'if' block on the same indentation level
> > as 'else': looks ok-ish for my taste (though inconsistent with #ifdef
> > code) and checkpatch swears:
> >
> >         WARNING: suspect code indent for conditional statements (8, 8)
> >         #82: FILE: drivers/clk/clk.c:3334:
> >         +    else
> >         [...]
> >              if (core->num_parents > 0)
>
> >   2. When adding 1 additional indentation level for subsequent 'if'
> > block: looks plain ugly to me, inconsistent for the case when
> > CLOCK_ALLOW_WRITE_DEBUGFS is not defined, but checkpatch is happy
> >
> > I still think that the way I did that (with curly braces) is better
> > one: it's consistent for all cases, looking ok, checkpatch is happy
> > too. But isn't it hairsplitting? This particular case is not described
> > in kernel coding style doc, so it's about personal preferences.
> >
> > If it's still important to you -- please provide exact code snippet
> > here (with indentations) for what you desire, I'll send v6. But
> > frankly I'd rather spend my time on something more useful. This is
> > minor patch, and I don't see any maintainers wishing to pull it yet.
>
> I meant
>
> #ifdef CLOCK_ALLOW_WRITE_DEBUGFS
>         if (core->num_parents > 1)
>                 debugfs_create_file("clk_parent", 0644, root, core,
>                                     &current_parent_rw_fops);
>         else
> #endif
>         if (core->num_parents > 0)
>                 debugfs_create_file("clk_parent", 0444, root, core,
>                                     &current_parent_fops);
>
> But after looking at the present code, this variant is occurred 5x-10x
> times less. So, only nit-picks then (note additional {} along with no
> blank line):
>
> #ifdef CLOCK_ALLOW_WRITE_DEBUGFS
>         if (core->num_parents > 1) {
>                 debugfs_create_file("clk_parent", 0644, root, core,
>                                     &current_parent_rw_fops);
>         } else
> #endif
>         {
>                 if (core->num_parents > 0)
>                         debugfs_create_file("clk_parent", 0444, root, core,
>                                             &current_parent_fops);
>         }
>

No problem, will add those {} in v6.

>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>