Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-85438-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 19:27:30 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
Cc: Subhajit Ghosh <subhajit.ghosh@tweaklogic.com>,
	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>, Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>,
	Anshul Dalal <anshulusr@gmail.com>,
	Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@gmail.com>,
	Matt Ranostay <matt@ranostay.sg>,
	Stefan Windfeldt-Prytz <stefan.windfeldt-prytz@axis.com>,
	linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 5/5] iio: light: Add support for APDS9306 Light Sensor
Message-ID: <Zd9tApJClX7Frq20@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20240228122408.18619-1-subhajit.ghosh@tweaklogic.com>
 <20240228122408.18619-6-subhajit.ghosh@tweaklogic.com>
 <a828e77c-b3d4-49bb-b0bb-b9fd6cb7d114@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a828e77c-b3d4-49bb-b0bb-b9fd6cb7d114@gmail.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 03:08:56PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> On 2/28/24 14:24, Subhajit Ghosh wrote:

..

> > +	ret = iio_gts_find_new_gain_by_old_gain_time(&data->gts, gain_old,
> > +						     intg_old, val2, &gain_new);
> 
> You don't use the 'ret' here, so maybe for the clarity, not assign it.
> Or, maybe you wan't to try to squeeze out few cycles for succesful case and
> check the ret for '0' - in which case you should be able to omit the check
> right below as well as the call to iio_find_closest_gain_low(). OTOH, this
> is likely not a "hot path" so I don't care too much about the extra call if
> you think code is clearer this way.
> 
> > +	if (gain_new < 0) {
> > +		dev_err_ratelimited(dev, "Unsupported gain with time\n");
> > +		return gain_new;
> > +	}

What is the difference between negative response from the function itself and
similar in gain_new?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko