On 6/17/24 8:38 AM, Alisa-Dariana Roman wrote:
> On 17.06.2024 16:22, David Lechner wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 4:35 AM Alisa-Dariana Roman
>> <alisadariana@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 15.06.2024 15:08, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 16:03:05 -0500
>>>> David Lechner <dlechner@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This makes use of the new devm_regulator_get_enable_read_voltage()
>>>>> function to reduce boilerplate code.
>>>>>
>>>>> Error messages have changed slightly since there are now fewer places
>>>>> where we print an error. The rest of the logic of selecting which
>>>>> supply to use as the reference voltage remains the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also 1000 is replaced by MILLI in a few places for consistency.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: David Lechner <dlechner@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> Complicated bit of code, but seems correct.
>>>> However, it crossed with Alisa-Dariana switching adding a
>>>> struct device *dev = &spi->dev to probe() that I picked up earlier
>>>> today.
>>>>
>>>> I could unwind that but given Alisa-Dariana has a number of
>>>> other patches on this driver in flight, I'd like the two of you
>>>> to work out the best resolution between you. Maybe easiest option
>>>> is that Alisa-Dariana sends this a first patch of the next
>>>> series I should pick up.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan
>>> I will add this patch to my series and send it shortly.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Alisa-Dariana Roman.
>>
>> Great, thanks!
>
> Just one quick question:
>
> I am getting two such warnings when running the checkpatch script:
>
> WARNING: else is not generally useful after a break or return
> #1335: FILE: ./drivers/iio/adc/ad7192.c:1335:
> + return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Failed to get AVDD voltage\n");
> + } else {
>
> Should I switch the last two branches to get rid of the warnings or just ignore them?
>
In the other patches, I was able to reorder things to avoid this
warning, but since this one was more complicated, I just ignored
this warning.
We can't just remove the else in this case because the return
is inside of an `else if`.
