On Fri, 03 Jun 2022 14:36:15 +0200
Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2022-06-03 at 13:16 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 4:04 PM Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > of_iio_channel_get_by_name() can either return NULL or an error
> > > pointer
> > > so that only doing IS_ERR() is not enough. Fix it by checking the
> > > NULL
> > > pointer case and return -ENODEV in that case. Note this is done
> > > like this
> > > so that users of the function (which only check for error pointers)
> > > do
> > > not need to be changed. This is not ideal since we are losing error
> > > codes
> > > and as such, in a follow up change, things will be unified so that
> > > of_iio_channel_get_by_name() only returns error codes.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > channel = of_iio_channel_get_by_name(np, channel_name);
> > > - if (IS_ERR(channel))
> > > + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(channel)) {
> > > + if (!channel)
> > > + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> > > return channel;
> > > + }
> >
> > Why not make it not nested, i.e. just adding two lines after the
> > existing check?
> > if (!channel)
> > return -ENODEV;
> >
> >
>
> I see, well yeah I guess I can do it so the diff is even smaller...
I'd prefer the way Andy suggested as well due to the slightly simpler control
flow.
Thanks,
Jonathan
>
> - Nuno Sá
>
