[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZIiJWKBFojAcNCkA@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 18:20:56 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Cc: Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] rtc: isl12022: implement RTC_VL_READ ioctl
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 03:00:07PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> Hook up support for reading the values of the SR_LBAT85 and SR_LBAT75
> bits. Translate the former to "battery low", and the latter to
> "battery empty or not-present".
A couple of nit-picks below.
...
> +static int isl12022_rtc_ioctl(struct device *dev, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
> +{
> + struct regmap *regmap = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> + u32 user = 0, val;
This assignment can be done in the actual case below.
> + int ret;
> +
> + switch (cmd) {
> + case RTC_VL_READ:
> + ret = regmap_read(regmap, ISL12022_REG_SR, &val);
> + if (ret < 0)
I always feel uneasy with ' < 0' — Does positive error makes sense?
Is it even possible? OTOH if the entire driver uses this idiom...
oh well, let's make it consistent.
> + return ret;
user = 0;
The rationale to avoid potential mistakes in the future in case this function
will be expanded and user will be re-used.
> + if (val & ISL12022_SR_LBAT85)
> + user |= RTC_VL_BACKUP_LOW;
> +
> + if (val & ISL12022_SR_LBAT75)
> + user |= RTC_VL_BACKUP_EMPTY;
> +
> + return put_user(user, (u32 __user *)arg);
> +
> + default:
> + return -ENOIOCTLCMD;
> + }
> +}
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists