On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 11:32:55 +0200
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2024 at 10:20:23AM -0700, Justin Weiss wrote:
> > Add read and write functions and create _available entries.
>
> ...
>
> > +static int bmi270_set_scale(struct bmi270_data *data,
> > + int chan_type, int uscale)
>
> There is available space in the previous line, (And I would even join them
> despite being 83 characters long.)
>
> ...
>
> > +static int bmi270_get_scale(struct bmi270_data *bmi270_device,
> > + int chan_type, int *uscale)
>
> Ditto (for chan_type).
>
> ...
>
> > +static int bmi270_set_odr(struct bmi270_data *data, int chan_type,
> > + int odr, int uodr)
>
> Ditto.
>
> ...
>
> > + for (i = 0; i < bmi270_odr_item.num; i++) {
> > + if (bmi270_odr_item.tbl[i].odr != odr ||
> > + bmi270_odr_item.tbl[i].uodr != uodr)
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + return regmap_update_bits(data->regmap, reg, mask,
> > + bmi270_odr_item.vals[i]);
> > + }
> > +
> > + return -EINVAL;
>
> Wouldn't be better to use regular patterns, i.e. checking for errors first?
Hmm. This was my suggestion :(. For a simple case of match and do
something if true, this is a reasonably common pattern - particularly
in cases where there is a fallback option. I.e. you'd do something
after the loop only if there is no match.
Anyhow, given I suggested it I feel mean asking Justin to revert
to what he had in the first place. I don't feel that strongly about it
though so if the two of you agree this is neater, send a follow up patch.
Tweaked the line wraps whilst applying.
>
> for (i = 0; i < bmi270_odr_item.num; i++) {
> if (bmi270_odr_item.tbl[i].odr == odr ||
> bmi270_odr_item.tbl[i].uodr == uodr)
That would be a bad idea && is fine though .
> break;
> }
> if (i == bmi270_odr_item.num)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> return regmap_update_bits(data->regmap, reg, mask, bmi270_odr_item.vals[i]);
>
> ...
>
> > +static int bmi270_get_odr(struct bmi270_data *data, int chan_type,
> > + int *odr, int *uodr)
>
> As per above.
>
> > + for (i = 0; i < bmi270_odr_item.num; i++) {
> > + if (val != bmi270_odr_item.vals[i])
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + *odr = bmi270_odr_item.tbl[i].odr;
> > + *uodr = bmi270_odr_item.tbl[i].uodr;
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return -EINVAL;
>
> As per above.
>
