Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: Use common error handling code in __scmi_device_create()

On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 10:34:52AM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring <[email protected]>
> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 10:27:45 +0200
> 
> Use an additional label so that a bit of exception handling can be better
> reused at the end of an if branch.
> 

Hi,

> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <[email protected]>
> ---
>  drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/bus.c | 7 +++----
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/bus.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/bus.c
> index 793be9eabaed..8c20ed1a8243 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/bus.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/bus.c
> @@ -450,14 +450,13 @@ __scmi_device_create(struct device_node *np, struct device *parent,
>  		return NULL;
>  
>  	scmi_dev->name = kstrdup_const(name ?: "unknown", GFP_KERNEL);
> -	if (!scmi_dev->name) {
> -		kfree(scmi_dev);
> -		return NULL;
> -	}
> +	if (!scmi_dev->name)
> +		goto free_scmi_dev;
>  
>  	id = ida_alloc_min(&scmi_bus_id, 1, GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (id < 0) {
>  		kfree_const(scmi_dev->name);
> +free_scmi_dev:
>  		kfree(scmi_dev);

I can understand the aim, but jumping in the middle of another block
just to reuse the cleanup statement is far less readable (and ugly)

Cleanup handlers probably a better solution here...but I have NOT looked
at all the sorrounding code here recently...so I maybe wrong and keeping
the current code could be even bette.

Thanks,
Cristian