From f709b38e5bfec5846f3f062e87f86ead0c881028 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andy Shevchenko Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2026 18:35:41 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] 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 --- drivers/dma/dmaengine.c | 10 ++++++---- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/dma/dmaengine.c b/drivers/dma/dmaengine.c index 27a8980b03dd..eb54e2b58d44 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);