linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] iio: proximity: Add driver support for vcnl3020 proximity sensor

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 31 Mar 2020 14:00:55 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Ivan Mikhaylov <i.mikhaylov@...ro.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 Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:41 PM Ivan Mikhaylov <i.mikhaylov@...ro.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-03-30 at 22:07 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 6:27 PM Ivan Mikhaylov <i.mikhaylov@...ro.com> wrote:

...

> > > +#define VCNL_DRV_NAME          "vcnl3020"
> > > +#define VCNL_REGMAP_NAME       "vcnl3020_regmap"
> >
> > I'm wondering why you need the second one.
>
> For regmap initialize as name in
> static const struct regmap_config vcnl3020_regmap_config = {
>        .name           = VCNL_REGMAP_NAME,
>
> I can get rid of it from struct with name definition.

I don't think we need a specific suffix. When somebody will look at it
they will already know that they are looking into regmap realm.

...

> > > +       rc = device_property_read_u32(data->dev, "vishay,led-current-
> > > milliamp",
> > > +                                     &led_current);
> > > +       if (rc == 0) {
> > > +               rc = regmap_write(data->regmap, VCNL_LED_CURRENT,
> > > led_current);
> > > +               if (rc)
> > > +                       dev_err(data->dev,
> > > +                               "Error (%d) setting LED current", rc);
> > > +       }
> > > +
> > > +       return rc;
> >
> > 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.

> Which one would be more preferable?

One which has better readability and smallest indentation level.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko