Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Thu, 29 Feb 2024 23:04:04 +1030 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v8 5/5] iio: light: Add support for APDS9306 Light Sensor | From | Subhajit Ghosh <> |
| |
On 29/2/24 03:57, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > 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? > -ve response form the function is an error condition. -ve value in gain_new means - no valid gains could be computed. In case of error conditions from the function, the gain_new is also set to -1. My use case is valid hardware gain so I went for checking only gain_new. Matti will be the best person to answer on this.
Regards, Subhajit Ghosh
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |