On 2/19/25 6:21 AM, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > On 19/02/2025 12:51, Nuno Sá wrote: >> On Wed, 2025-02-19 at 07:36 +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote: >>> On 18/02/2025 17:42, David Lechner wrote: >>>> On 2/18/25 1:39 AM, Matti Vaittinen wrote: >>>>> On 17/02/2025 16:01, Jonathan Cameron wrote: >>>>>> From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> >>>>>> These new functions allow sparse to find failures to release >>>>>> direct mode reducing chances of bugs over the claim_direct_mode() >>>>>> functions that are deprecated. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> Cc: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> drivers/iio/accel/kionix-kx022a.c | 14 ++++++-------- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/accel/kionix-kx022a.c >>>>>> b/drivers/iio/accel/kionix-kx022a.c >>>>>> index 727e007c5fc1..07dcf5f0599f 100644 >>>>>> --- a/drivers/iio/accel/kionix-kx022a.c >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/iio/accel/kionix-kx022a.c >>>>>> @@ -577,13 +577,12 @@ static int kx022a_write_raw(struct iio_dev *idev, >>>>>> * issues if users trust the watermark to be reached within known >>>>>> * time-limit). >>>>>> */ >>>>>> - ret = iio_device_claim_direct_mode(idev); >>>>>> - if (ret) >>>>>> - return ret; >>>>>> + if (!iio_device_claim_direct(idev)) >>>>>> + return -EBUSY; >>>>> >>>>> Not really in the scope of this review - but in my opinion the logic of >>>>> this check is terribly counter intuitive. I mean, >>>>> >>>>>> + if (iio_device_claim_direct(idev)) >>>>>> + return -EBUSY; >>>> >>>> I'm curious how you read this then. I read this as: >>>> >>>> "If claiming direct mode succeeded, then return an error!" >>> >>> I am used to seeing a pattern where function returning zero indicates a >>> success. I have no statistics but I believe this is true for a vast >>> majority of functions in the kernel. I believe this was the case with >>> the old 'iio_device_claim_direct_mode(idev)' too. >>> >> >> Fair enough... Note though this is returning a boolean where true makes total >> sense for the "good" case. I do agree it's not super clear just by reading the >> code that the API is supposed to return a boolean. > > Exactly. Just seeing the call in code was not obvious to me. It required finding the prototype to understand what happens. > > Anyways, I guess this discussion is out of the scope of this patch and if no one else sees this important enough to go and change the iio_device_claim_direct() - then I am fine with this patch. So, with a bit of teeth grinding: > > Reviewed-by: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> > > Yours, > -- Matti > > Would a name like iio_device_try_claim_direct_mode() make it more obvious that it returned a bool instead of int?
