On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 12:56 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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:
...
> > > +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;
Also note, this variable is redundant as far as I can see, just return
the error code directly.
> > > +
> > > + 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)
Thank you!
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
