[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vc5CxOj77cw85hmioFTG6YJCe3ZJWwJsJW+QL79K8GpWw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2025 22:27:52 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc: Sean Nyekjaer <sean@...nix.com>,
Jean-Baptiste Maneyrol <jean-baptiste.maneyrol@....com>, David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>,
Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jean-Baptiste Maneyrol <jmaneyrol@...ensense.com>, Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] iio: imu: inv_icm42600: Simplify pm_runtime setup
On Sat, Aug 9, 2025 at 8:06 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2025 23:37:51 +0200
> Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 5:58 PM Sean Nyekjaer <sean@...nix.com> wrote:
...
> > > + struct device *dev = regmap_get_device(st->map);
> > >
> > > + if (!pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev))
> > > + regulator_disable(st->vddio_supply);
> >
> > I would rather use positive conditional as it seems to me more scalable
>
> To potentially save time when Sean looks at this. I don't follow. Do you mean
> something like
> if (pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev))
> return;
>
> regulator_disable(st->vddio_supply);
>
> ?
Yes.
> If so I'm not seeing why we'd want this to scale as it's a single use
> devm_set_action_or_reset() callback doing just one thing.
While I agree in _this_ case, in general the check and return
immediately is more scalable for reading purposes, e.g., indentation
will be one level less. Also it won't require additional churn in
adding {, i.e. changing conditional line just for that.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists