From: Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@ericsson.com>
To: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Ira W. Snyder" <iws@ovro.caltech.edu>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@us.ibm.com>,
"lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org" <lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] hwmon: Fix checkpatch errors in lm90 driver
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:49:26 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100827134926.GA21827@ericsson.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100827134523.6bcc70aa@hyperion.delvare>
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 07:45:23AM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Guenter,
>
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:54:36 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@ericsson.com>
> > ---
> > The main rationale for this cleanup is to prepare the driver for adding max6696
> > support.
>
> I'm fine with mostly anything, except...
>
[...]
> > /* detection and identification */
> > - if ((man_id = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(new_client,
> > - LM90_REG_R_MAN_ID)) < 0
> > - || (chip_id = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(new_client,
> > - LM90_REG_R_CHIP_ID)) < 0
> > - || (reg_config1 = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(new_client,
> > - LM90_REG_R_CONFIG1)) < 0
> > - || (reg_convrate = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(new_client,
> > - LM90_REG_R_CONVRATE)) < 0)
> > + man_id = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(new_client, LM90_REG_R_MAN_ID);
> > + if (man_id < 0)
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > +
> > + chip_id = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(new_client, LM90_REG_R_CHIP_ID);
> > + if (chip_id < 0)
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > +
> > + reg_config1 = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(new_client, LM90_REG_R_CONFIG1);
> > + if (reg_config1 < 0)
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > +
> > + reg_convrate = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(new_client,
> > + LM90_REG_R_CONVRATE);
> > + if (reg_convrate < 0)
> > return -ENODEV;
>
> ... this. I think this check should be relaxed a bit, cascaded error
> checking is done in many drivers and I don't think this is anything to
> worry about.
>
I agree. I struggled with that myself when I made the changes, but let checkpatch win.
> No need to resend, I've just dropped the two chunks I don't like, and
> applied the resulting patch. Thanks!
>
Great, thanks.
Next question: lm90_update_device() currently does not return any errors.
In recent drivers, we pass i2c read errors up to userland. Before I introduce
the max6696 changes, does it make sense to add error checking/return
into the driver, similar to what I have done in the smm665 and jc42 drivers ?
Guenter
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@ericsson.com>
To: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Ira W. Snyder" <iws@ovro.caltech.edu>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@us.ibm.com>,
"lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org" <lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hwmon: Fix checkpatch errors in lm90 driver
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 06:49:26 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100827134926.GA21827@ericsson.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100827134523.6bcc70aa@hyperion.delvare>
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 07:45:23AM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Guenter,
>
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:54:36 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@ericsson.com>
> > ---
> > The main rationale for this cleanup is to prepare the driver for adding max6696
> > support.
>
> I'm fine with mostly anything, except...
>
[...]
> > /* detection and identification */
> > - if ((man_id = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(new_client,
> > - LM90_REG_R_MAN_ID)) < 0
> > - || (chip_id = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(new_client,
> > - LM90_REG_R_CHIP_ID)) < 0
> > - || (reg_config1 = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(new_client,
> > - LM90_REG_R_CONFIG1)) < 0
> > - || (reg_convrate = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(new_client,
> > - LM90_REG_R_CONVRATE)) < 0)
> > + man_id = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(new_client, LM90_REG_R_MAN_ID);
> > + if (man_id < 0)
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > +
> > + chip_id = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(new_client, LM90_REG_R_CHIP_ID);
> > + if (chip_id < 0)
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > +
> > + reg_config1 = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(new_client, LM90_REG_R_CONFIG1);
> > + if (reg_config1 < 0)
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > +
> > + reg_convrate = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(new_client,
> > + LM90_REG_R_CONVRATE);
> > + if (reg_convrate < 0)
> > return -ENODEV;
>
> ... this. I think this check should be relaxed a bit, cascaded error
> checking is done in many drivers and I don't think this is anything to
> worry about.
>
I agree. I struggled with that myself when I made the changes, but let checkpatch win.
> No need to resend, I've just dropped the two chunks I don't like, and
> applied the resulting patch. Thanks!
>
Great, thanks.
Next question: lm90_update_device() currently does not return any errors.
In recent drivers, we pass i2c read errors up to userland. Before I introduce
the max6696 changes, does it make sense to add error checking/return
into the driver, similar to what I have done in the smm665 and jc42 drivers ?
Guenter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-08-27 13:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-08-26 15:54 [PATCH] hwmon: Fix checkpatch errors in lm90 driver Guenter Roeck
2010-08-26 15:54 ` [lm-sensors] " Guenter Roeck
2010-08-27 11:45 ` Jean Delvare
2010-08-27 11:45 ` Jean Delvare
2010-08-27 13:49 ` Guenter Roeck [this message]
2010-08-27 13:49 ` Guenter Roeck
2010-08-27 15:24 ` [lm-sensors] " Jean Delvare
2010-08-27 15:24 ` Jean Delvare
2010-08-27 16:48 ` [lm-sensors] " Guenter Roeck
2010-08-27 16:48 ` Guenter Roeck
2010-08-27 17:07 ` [lm-sensors] " Jean Delvare
2010-08-27 17:07 ` Jean Delvare
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100827134926.GA21827@ericsson.com \
--to=guenter.roeck@ericsson.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=djwong@us.ibm.com \
--cc=iws@ovro.caltech.edu \
--cc=khali@linux-fr.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.