On 1/5/25 11:25 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This driver caused a false positive with __cond_lock() style solution
> but is fine with the simple boolean return approach now used.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/iio/chemical/scd30_core.c | 9 +++++----
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/chemical/scd30_core.c b/drivers/iio/chemical/scd30_core.c
> index d613c54cb28d..cfbf2f5e9443 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/chemical/scd30_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/chemical/scd30_core.c
> @@ -211,18 +211,19 @@ static int scd30_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, struct iio_chan_spec const
> break;
> }
>
> - ret = iio_device_claim_direct_mode(indio_dev);
> - if (ret)
> + if (!iio_device_claim_direct(indio_dev)) {
> + ret = -EBUSY;
> break;
> + }
>
> ret = scd30_read(state);
> if (ret) {
> - iio_device_release_direct_mode(indio_dev);
> + iio_device_release_direct(indio_dev);
> break;
> }
>
> *val = state->meas[chan->address];
> - iio_device_release_direct_mode(indio_dev);
> + iio_device_release_direct(indio_dev);
> ret = IIO_VAL_INT;
> break;
> case IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE:
Could do with a precursor patch to use guard(mutex) to allow returning directly
everywhere and avoid break;.
