Hi, On 7/4/23 16:32, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 02:55:02PM +0100, Dan Scally wrote: >> On 30/06/2023 16:45, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 2:07 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > (Can you remove unneeded context when replying to the messages, please?) > > ... > >>>> + if (!acpi_match_device_ids(adev, dual_lane_sensors)) >>>> + lanes = 2; >>>> + else >>>> + lanes = 1; >>> Can we use positive conditional? >>> >>> if (acpi_match_device_ids(adev, dual_lane_sensors)) >>> lanes = 1; >>> else >>> lanes = 2; >> >> Or perhaps "if (acpi_match_device_ids(adev, dual_lane_sensors) == 0)"? > > Unfortunately this will be more confusing. The above mentioned API returns > the error code or 0 on success. > > ret = acpi_match_device_ids(adev, dual_lane_sensors); > if (ret) > lanes = 1; > else > lanes = 2; > > probably is the best to have semantics of returned code more or less > easy to get. For adding vcm instantiation support I'm going to need more per-sensor atomisp bridge specific data. So I'll switch this to using match-data in the next version, using only match-data for sensors where lanes != 1 (or with a VCM, which usually are the same set of sensors). Regards, Hans
