On Fri, 2024-05-31 at 16:19 -0500, David Lechner wrote:
> This makes use of the new devm_regulator_get_enable_read_voltage()
> function to reduce boilerplate code.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Lechner <dlechner@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/iio/adc/ad7266.c | 37 ++++++++++---------------------------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/ad7266.c b/drivers/iio/adc/ad7266.c
> index 353a97f9c086..026db1bedc0a 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/ad7266.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/ad7266.c
> @@ -25,7 +25,6 @@
>
> struct ad7266_state {
> struct spi_device *spi;
> - struct regulator *reg;
> unsigned long vref_mv;
>
> struct spi_transfer single_xfer[3];
> @@ -377,11 +376,6 @@ static const char * const ad7266_gpio_labels[] = {
> "ad0", "ad1", "ad2",
> };
>
> -static void ad7266_reg_disable(void *reg)
> -{
> - regulator_disable(reg);
> -}
> -
> static int ad7266_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
> {
> struct ad7266_platform_data *pdata = spi->dev.platform_data;
> @@ -396,28 +390,17 @@ static int ad7266_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
>
> st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
>
> - st->reg = devm_regulator_get_optional(&spi->dev, "vref");
> - if (!IS_ERR(st->reg)) {
> - ret = regulator_enable(st->reg);
> - if (ret)
> - return ret;
> -
> - ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(&spi->dev, ad7266_reg_disable, st-
> >reg);
> - if (ret)
> - return ret;
> -
> - ret = regulator_get_voltage(st->reg);
> - if (ret < 0)
> - return ret;
> -
> - st->vref_mv = ret / 1000;
> - } else {
> - /* Any other error indicates that the regulator does exist */
> - if (PTR_ERR(st->reg) != -ENODEV)
> - return PTR_ERR(st->reg);
> - /* Use internal reference */
> + /*
> + * Use external reference from vref if present, otherwise use 2.5V
> + * internal reference.
> + */
Not sure the comment brings any added value. The code is fairly self explanatory
IMO...
> + ret = devm_regulator_get_enable_read_voltage(&spi->dev, "vref");
> + if (ret == -ENODEV)
> st->vref_mv = 2500;
> - }
> + else if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> + else
I think it would be better (as that is the typical pattern) to first check for
errors. Also the 'return' in the middle of the else if () is a bit weird to me...
Maybe something like this?
if (ret < 0 && ret != -ENODEV)
return ret;
if (ret == -ENODEV)
st->vref_mv = 2500;
else
st->vref_mv = ret / 1000;
or even replacing the if() else by
st->vref_mv = ret == -ENODEV ? 2500 : ret / 1000;
- Nuno Sá
