On Thursday 09 November 2017 14:04:19 SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > Better fix would be to display separate messages; user is probably > > interested in what failed... > > Which information (or wording) would you find more appropriate > at these places? Hi! Basically dropping your patch and instead of the "Unknown error" return to user reason why BQ2415X_BOOST_MODE_STATUS or BQ2415X_FAULT_STATUS commands failed. Or at least instead of the "Unknown error" write "Unknown error during BQ2415X_FAULT_STATUS". Basically I do not see any value in your patch. Current coding style pattern in that function is: do_something; if failed: print error; return; And your patch just changed some, but not *all* parts of code to: do_something; if failed: goto end_of_function If you are changing coding style, I would really suggest to change it on all places to let it consistent. Because your change introduces just inconsistency. -- Pali Rohár pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
