[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6ab1852e-139f-579b-3ef4-5c98e0ea446d@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2023 08:26:00 +0300
From: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Lars-Peter Clausen
<lars@...afoo.de>, Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, Andreas Klinger <ak@...klinger.de>,
Marcin Wojtas <mw@...ihalf.com>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Neuschäfer <j.neuschaefer@....net>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>,
Akhil R <akhilrajeev@...dia.com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/7] iio: mb1232: relax return value check for IRQ get
On 5/19/23 08:00, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> On 5/17/23 19:47, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 10:12:41AM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
>>> fwnode_irq_get() was changed to not return 0 anymore.
>>>
>>> Drop check for return value 0.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> - if (data->irqnr <= 0) {
>>> + if (data->irqnr < 0) {
>>> /* usage of interrupt is optional */
>>> data->irqnr = -1;
>>> } else {
>>
>>
>> After this change I'm not sure we need this branch at all, I mean that
>> -errn is
>> equal to -1 in the code (but needs to be checked for silly checks like
>> == -1).
>>
>> Hence
>>
>> Entire excerpt can be replaced with
>>
>> if (data->irqnr > 0) {
>>
>
> I agree. Furthermore, at a quick glance it seems the whole irqnr could
> be dropped from the private data, and the private data struct could
> probably be static. I'd send them as separate clean-ups though as those
> changes are not really related to this return-value series.
Please, ignore everything I wrote above, except that I agree to your
suggestion. I was writing utter nonsense. Sorry for the noise.
>
> Yours,
> -- Matti
>
--
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland
~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~
Powered by blists - more mailing lists