On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:41 PM Ivan Mikhaylov <i.mikhaylov@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx> 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
