Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1305939 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 2/2] mfd: smsc-ece1099: Refactoring for smsc_i2c_probe()

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH 2/2] mfd: smsc-ece1099: Refactoring for smsc_i2c_probe() Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2016-01-11 09:20 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 2/2] mfd: smsc-ece1099: Refactoring for smsc_i2c_probe() Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2016-01-12 10:10 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 2/2] mfd: smsc-ece1099: Refactoring for smsc_i2c_probe() SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2016-01-12 12:30 +0100

#1305939 — Re: [PATCH 2/2] mfd: smsc-ece1099: Refactoring for smsc_i2c_probe()

Oh, the subject line is also duff.  Please describe the changes properly.

"refactoring X", "making changes to Y" are not good subject lines. 

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> 
> > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> > Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 15:03:31 +0100
> > 
> > This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
> > 
> > * Let us return directly if a call of the function "devm_regmap_init_i2c"
> >   or "regmap_write" failed.
> > 
> > * Delete the jump label "err" then.
> 
> Why are you bullet pointing here?
> 
> Just use proper sentences to tell us what's going on.
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> > ---
> >  drivers/mfd/smsc-ece1099.c | 9 +++------
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> Code looks fine however.
> 
> Please re-submit the set with the aforementioned changes along with my:
> 
> Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> 
> > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/smsc-ece1099.c b/drivers/mfd/smsc-ece1099.c
> > index bcac488..951333a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mfd/smsc-ece1099.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/smsc-ece1099.c
> > @@ -46,10 +46,8 @@ static int smsc_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	smsc->regmap = devm_regmap_init_i2c(i2c, &smsc_regmap_config);
> > -	if (IS_ERR(smsc->regmap)) {
> > -		ret = PTR_ERR(smsc->regmap);
> > -		goto err;
> > -	}
> > +	if (IS_ERR(smsc->regmap))
> > +		return PTR_ERR(smsc->regmap);
> >  
> >  	i2c_set_clientdata(i2c, smsc);
> >  	smsc->dev = &i2c->dev;
> > @@ -68,7 +66,7 @@ static int smsc_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
> >  
> >  	ret = regmap_write(smsc->regmap, SMSC_CLK_CTRL, smsc->clk);
> >  	if (ret)
> > -		goto err;
> > +		return ret;
> >  
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_OF
> >  	if (i2c->dev.of_node)
> > @@ -76,7 +74,6 @@ static int smsc_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
> >  					   NULL, NULL, &i2c->dev);
> >  #endif
> >  
> > -err:
> >  	return ret;
> >  }
> >  
> 

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1307131

Please refrain from replying off-list.  Adding back the Cc's.

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > Oh, the subject line is also duff.  Please describe the changes properly.
> > 
> > "refactoring X", "making changes to Y" are not good subject lines.
> 
> Which topic would you prefer for my update suggestion instead?

This one.

"mfd: smsc-ece1099: Refactoring for smsc_i2c_probe()"

The function name and just describing the changes as "refactoring" do
not describe the changes in a helpful way.

> >> Code looks fine however.
> 
> Thanks for your look.
> 
> 
> >> Please re-submit the set with the aforementioned changes along with my:
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> 
> Do you really request that I should append this tag already to messages
> for (my adjusted) commits you can not see so far?

Yes.  The code looks fine, and if the commit log is still not up to
scratch I just won't apply it. :)

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1307291

>> Which topic would you prefer for my update suggestion instead?
> 
> This one.
> 
> "mfd: smsc-ece1099: Refactoring for smsc_i2c_probe()"
> 
> The function name and just describing the changes as "refactoring" do
> not describe the changes in a helpful way.

Would you find a subject like "mfd: smsc-ece1099: Better exception handling
in smsc_i2c_probe()" acceptable?


>>>> Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
>>
>> Do you really request that I should append this tag already to messages
>> for (my adjusted) commits you can not see so far?
> 
> Yes.

Interesting …


> The code looks fine,

Thanks for a bit of positive feedback.


> and if the commit log is still not up to scratch I just won't apply it. :)

Can we eventually agree on an useful message before I would dare another commit?

Will it be sufficient to delete the asterisks there?

Regards,
Markus

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web