Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 5 May 2026 10:21:39 +0300 | | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 06/17] iio: magnetometer: ak8975: modernize polling loops with iopoll() macros |
| |
On Tue, May 05, 2026 at 09:07:30AM +0200, Joshua Crofts wrote: > On Tue, 5 May 2026 at 06:58, Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Mon, May 04, 2026 at 04:06:06PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > > On Mon, 04 May 2026 11:48:18 +0200 > > > Joshua Crofts via B4 Relay <devnull+joshua.crofts1.gmail.com@kernel.org> wrote:
...
> > > One question inline on whether it is a good idea to be paranoid about > > > gpiod_get_value() potentially returning < 0 to indicate an error. > > > Right now that is treated as success. > > > > > > + ret = readx_poll_timeout(gpiod_get_value, data->eoc_gpiod, val, val != 0, > > > > + AK8975_CONVERSION_DONE_POLL_TIME * USEC_PER_MSEC, > > > > + AK8975_MAX_CONVERSION_TIMEOUT * USEC_PER_MSEC); > > > > + if (ret) > > > > + return ret; > > > > > > Should we check val as well? It might be negative if gpiod_get_value() > > > returned an error.. Obviously the original code didn't so this would be an > > > improvement rather than maintaining what that was doing. > > > > I agree that this would be a good addition, but since it's a behavioural change > > I think the separate patch should be made (perhaps after readx_*() conversion > > as it makes it easier to do). > > Good point, val should definitely be checked. Will send a fix this afternoon.
It's better to integrate it into the series either as a fix (should be first in the series) or as just an improvement after readx_*() conversion patch.
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
|  |