On 6/4/24 6:19 AM, Nuno Sá wrote:
> 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...
Well, you do this every day. :-)
For someone who never wrote an IIO driver, it could be helpful.
>
>> + 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
>
I think I like that better too.
