[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHcu+VaDBj87stJ9JJkuerJkr8=-g68FhUUnKvfpN8uYaMBUhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 14:07:00 -0600
From: Daniel Campello <campello@...omium.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@...omium.org>,
Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
linux-iio <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/15] iio: sx9310: Fix irq handling
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 12:08 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 6:14 PM Daniel Campello <campello@...omium.org> wrote:
> >
> > Fixes enable/disable irq handling at various points. The driver needs to
> > only enable/disable irqs if there is an actual irq handler installed.
>
> > - enable_irq(data->client->irq);
> > + if (!ret)
> > + enable_irq(data->client->irq);
> >
> > return ret;
> > }
>
> Can it be a usual pattern?
>
> if (ret)
> return ret;
> ...
> return 0;
I think this way is more readable. The alternative would have to be
something like this:
....
if (ret)
goto out;
mutex_unlock(&data->mutex);
enable_irq(data->client->irq);
return 0;
out:
mutex_unlock(&data->mutex);
return ret;
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
Regards,
Daniel Campello
Powered by blists - more mailing lists