From: Andy Shevchenko Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2026 17:35:41 +0000 (+0100) Subject: dmaengine: Refactor devm_dma_request_chan() for readability X-Git-Tag: v7.1-rc1~109^2~55 X-Git-Url: http://git.ipfire.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=f709b38e5bfec5846f3f062e87f86ead0c881028;p=thirdparty%2Fkernel%2Flinux.git 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 Reviewed-by: Dave Jiang Reviewed-by: Frank Li Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260109173718.3605829-2-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul --- diff --git a/drivers/dma/dmaengine.c b/drivers/dma/dmaengine.c index 27a8980b03dd2..eb54e2b58d447 100644 --- 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);