dmaengine: Refactor devm_dma_request_chan() for readability

Yes, while it's a bit longer in terms of LoCs, it's more readable
when we use the usual patter to check for errors, and not for
a success). This eliminates unneeded assignment and moves the
needed one closer to its user which is better programming pattern
because it allows avoiding potential errors in case the variable
is getting reused. Also note that the same pattern have been used
already in dmaenginem_async_device_register().

Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@nxp.com>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260109173718.3605829-2-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>

diff --git a/drivers/dma/dmaengine.c b/drivers/dma/dmaengine.c
index 27a8980b03dd262458baf06b9ca00b635622e954..eb54e2b58d4470c933d6c68075b9e9f0e4fe65b0 100644 (file)
--- a/drivers/dma/dmaengine.c
+++ b/drivers/dma/dmaengine.c
@@ -943,12 +943,14 @@ static void dmaenginem_release_channel(void *chan)
 
 struct dma_chan *devm_dma_request_chan(struct device *dev, const char *name)
 {
-       struct dma_chan *chan = dma_request_chan(dev, name);
-       int ret = 0;
+       struct dma_chan *chan;
+       int ret;
 
-       if (!IS_ERR(chan))
-               ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, dmaenginem_release_channel, chan);
+       chan = dma_request_chan(dev, name);
+       if (IS_ERR(chan))
+               return chan;
 
+       ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, dmaenginem_release_channel, chan);
        if (ret)
                return ERR_PTR(ret);