On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 10:23:36 +0100 Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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). It's odd code I don't expect to see anywhere else, so I'm not that fussed if it takes a little more thinking than normal (and you have a comment there to help us!) So I'm fine with leaving this as it stands Jonathan > > 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
