On Tue, 2024-02-06 at 19:51 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 6:51 PM Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 2024-02-06 at 16:20 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 12:08 PM Nuno Sa via B4 Relay > > > <devnull+nuno.sa.analog.com@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ... > > > > > + st->back = devm_iio_backend_get(&st->spi->dev, NULL); > > > > + /* If not found, don't error out as we might have legacy DT > > > > property */ > > > > + if (!IS_ERR(st->back)) > > > > + return 0; > > > > + if (PTR_ERR(st->back) != -ENOENT) > > > > + return PTR_ERR(st->back); > > > > > > This looks hackish... > > > > This was suggested by Jonathan so I'm keen in leaving it as-is > > I think I proposed how to improve it. Jonathan? > Well, you did change it around so that we have the typical 'if (ret)' pattern. But, honestly, that is also bringing an arguably useless helper. So, yes, currently we are not doing the typical "check for errors first" pattern but I do think that the code is perfectly fine and readable as it is. It's also already pretty late in the review process of the series and there was already some back and forth so to me, the above is really a minor detail and I'm not keen on changing it at this stage (unless Jonathan really feels strong about doing it). I'll spin a v10 with your dev_err_probe() suggestion later today but at this point I would prefer to not have to spin another one (afterwards) unless really needed (meaning, not because of minor details). - Nuno Sá
