[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <86186f02c630a05cf7254a38e0f15d726e2f440b.camel@yadro.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 19:56:18 +0300
From: Ivan Mikhaylov <i.mikhaylov@...ro.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
CC: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
linux-iio <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] iio: proximity: Add driver support for vcnl3020
proximity sensor
On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 14:00 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > Why not to use standard pattern, i.e.
> > >
> > > if (rc)
> > > return rc;
> > > ...
> > > rc = regmap_write(...);
> > >
> > > ?
> >
> > Optional parameter. There exists a lot of ways to do it:
>
> I'm simple reading the code. And I believe the above I suggested is
> cleaner equivalent.
> Is it?
>
> > rc = device_property_read_u32(dev, "milliamp", &led_current);
> > rc = regmap_write(regmap, VCNL_LED_CURRENT, (!rc) : led_current ? 0);
>
> This seems not equal to above.
Yes, it is not equal. Error will be returned in case of non existent parameter
in vcnl3020_init but parameter is optional. rc shouldn't be checked or should
return 0 with your suggestion.
rc = device_property_read_u32(...);
if (rc)
return 0;
rc = regmap_write(...);
if (rc)
dev_err(...);
return rc;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists