On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 08:45:21 +0000
Eugene Zaikonnikov <eugene.zaikonnikov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
We should look to clean up any cases where a valid error code is
overwritten with no good reason. I thought we were pretty good
on that generally but there may be some still hiding in various
drivers.
Thanks,
Jonathan
