2023-05-16 07:20:26

by Matti Vaittinen

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH v4 2/7] iio: mb1232: relax return value check for IRQ get

fwnode_irq_get() was changed to not return 0 anymore.

Drop check for return value 0.

Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <[email protected]>

---

The first patch of the series changes the fwnode_irq_get() so this depends
on the first patch of the series and should not be applied alone.
---
drivers/iio/proximity/mb1232.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/iio/proximity/mb1232.c b/drivers/iio/proximity/mb1232.c
index e70cac8240af..2ab3e3fb2bae 100644
--- a/drivers/iio/proximity/mb1232.c
+++ b/drivers/iio/proximity/mb1232.c
@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ static s16 mb1232_read_distance(struct mb1232_data *data)
goto error_unlock;
}

- if (data->irqnr >= 0) {
+ if (data->irqnr > 0) {
/* it cannot take more than 100 ms */
ret = wait_for_completion_killable_timeout(&data->ranging,
HZ/10);
@@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ static int mb1232_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
init_completion(&data->ranging);

data->irqnr = fwnode_irq_get(dev_fwnode(&client->dev), 0);
- if (data->irqnr <= 0) {
+ if (data->irqnr < 0) {
/* usage of interrupt is optional */
data->irqnr = -1;
} else {
--
2.40.1


--
Matti Vaittinen, Linux device drivers
ROHM Semiconductors, Finland SWDC
Kiviharjunlenkki 1E
90220 OULU
FINLAND

~~~ "I don't think so," said Rene Descartes. Just then he vanished ~~~
Simon says - in Latin please.
~~~ "non cogito me" dixit Rene Descarte, deinde evanescavit ~~~
Thanks to Simon Glass for the translation =]


Attachments:
(No filename) (1.50 kB)
signature.asc (499.00 B)
Download all attachments

2023-05-17 16:51:46

by Andy Shevchenko

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/7] iio: mb1232: relax return value check for IRQ get

On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 10:12:41AM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> fwnode_irq_get() was changed to not return 0 anymore.
>
> Drop check for return value 0.

...

> - if (data->irqnr <= 0) {
> + if (data->irqnr < 0) {
> /* usage of interrupt is optional */
> data->irqnr = -1;
> } else {


After this change I'm not sure we need this branch at all, I mean that -errn is
equal to -1 in the code (but needs to be checked for silly checks like == -1).

Hence

Entire excerpt can be replaced with

if (data->irqnr > 0) {

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko



2023-05-19 05:22:42

by Matti Vaittinen

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/7] iio: mb1232: relax return value check for IRQ get

On 5/17/23 19:47, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 10:12:41AM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
>> fwnode_irq_get() was changed to not return 0 anymore.
>>
>> Drop check for return value 0.
>
> ...
>
>> - if (data->irqnr <= 0) {
>> + if (data->irqnr < 0) {
>> /* usage of interrupt is optional */
>> data->irqnr = -1;
>> } else {
>
>
> After this change I'm not sure we need this branch at all, I mean that -errn is
> equal to -1 in the code (but needs to be checked for silly checks like == -1).
>
> Hence
>
> Entire excerpt can be replaced with
>
> if (data->irqnr > 0) {
>

I agree. Furthermore, at a quick glance it seems the whole irqnr could
be dropped from the private data, and the private data struct could
probably be static. I'd send them as separate clean-ups though as those
changes are not really related to this return-value series.

Yours,
-- Matti

--
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland

~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~


2023-05-19 06:02:25

by Matti Vaittinen

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/7] iio: mb1232: relax return value check for IRQ get

On 5/19/23 08:00, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> On 5/17/23 19:47, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 10:12:41AM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
>>> fwnode_irq_get() was changed to not return 0 anymore.
>>>
>>> Drop check for return value 0.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> -    if (data->irqnr <= 0) {
>>> +    if (data->irqnr < 0) {
>>>           /* usage of interrupt is optional */
>>>           data->irqnr = -1;
>>>       } else {
>>
>>
>> After this change I'm not sure we need this branch at all, I mean that
>> -errn is
>> equal to -1 in the code (but needs to be checked for silly checks like
>> == -1).
>>
>> Hence
>>
>> Entire excerpt can be replaced with
>>
>>     if (data->irqnr > 0) {
>>
>
> I agree. Furthermore, at a quick glance it seems the whole irqnr could
> be dropped from the private data, and the private data struct could
> probably be static. I'd send them as separate clean-ups though as those
> changes are not really related to this return-value series.

Please, ignore everything I wrote above, except that I agree to your
suggestion. I was writing utter nonsense. Sorry for the noise.

>
> Yours,
>     -- Matti
>

--
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland

~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~