Hi Jonathan,
On 23.12.2019 18:16, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>
> As below. Why change the existing return value?
>
>> + }
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>> + case IIO_CHAN_INFO_PEAK: {
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + ret = iio_device_claim_direct_mode(indio_dev);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> + mutex_lock(&data->lock);
>> + ret = hdc2010_get_measurement_byte(data, chan);
>> + mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
>> + iio_device_release_direct_mode(indio_dev);
>> + if (ret >= 0) {
>> + /* Scaling up the value so we can use same offset as RAW */
>> + *val = ret * 256;
>> + ret = IIO_VAL_INT;
>> + } else
> Why overwrite ret? That might provide better information
> on what went wrong.
As with the other stylistic notes before, no good reason other than how it was handled in other drivers in the tree. So I assumed it was the practice. Will tidy up later this week I hope and send a new patchset.
--
Eugene
