On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 21:58:00 +0200
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 04:50:39PM +0000, Lothar Rubusch kirjoitti:
> > Move the fifo handling into a separate function. This is a preparation
> > for a generic handling of the interrupt status register results.
> >
> > The interrupt status register is read into a variable int_stat. It carries
> > status for various sensor events, handling of which is added in follow up
> > patches. Evaluation of the int_stat variable is common for sensor events,
> > such as tap detection, freefall, activity,... and for fifo events, such as
> > data ready, overrun, watermark,... Also, dealing with in case error
> > returns shall be common to all events. Thus migrate fifo read-out and push
> > fifo content to iio channels into this function to be built up with
> > additional event handling.
>
> ...
>
> > +static int adxl345_push_event(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, int int_stat)
> > +{
> > + struct adxl345_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> > + int samples;
> > + int ret = -ENOENT;
> > +
> > + if (FIELD_GET(ADXL345_INT_WATERMARK, int_stat)) {
> > + samples = adxl345_get_samples(st);
> > + if (samples < 0)
>
> > + return -EINVAL;
>
> In the original code it makes no difference, but if you are going to share
> this, I would expect to see
>
> return samples;
>
> here. Why the error code is shadowed? If it's trully needed, it has to be
> explained in the comment.
>
>
> > + if (adxl345_fifo_push(indio_dev, samples) < 0)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
>
> ...
>
> Jonathan, I saw that you had applied it, but I guess the above needs
> a clarification.
Was right at the top of a tree I don't mind rebasing. So dropped
this patch (kept 1-3)
>
