On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 12:06 +0100 Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] >> >> + dev_err(data->dev, "Could not write hp filter frequency (%d)\n", >> >> + ret); >> >> + return ret; >> > >> > drop this return ret out of the if block here. >> > >> > In general being able to ignore possibility of ret > 0 simplifies handling. >> >> I try to be consistent and it also "helps" the next person potentially >> adding code after the `if`-statement and forgetting about adding >> `return`. We can drop the `return here, but then we should do the same >> in other places with a check just before the last `return` (like >> `irsd200_write_timer()`, `irsd200_read_nr_count()`, >> `irsd200_write_nr_count()` and many more), right? > > I don't feel particulartly strongly about this, but there are scripts > that get used to scan for this pattern to simplify the code. > > Sure on the other cases. I don't tend to try and label all cases of things > pointed out, just pick on one and rely on the patch author to generalise. I started to remove the returns but then realized that it got a little messy. For example, in some cases we can't drop the return (side effects after the return etc.). Since you didn't have any strong opinions on this, I kept them in v2. Hope that's fine!
