Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] iio: light: tcs3472: move standalone return to default case

[Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>]

On Wed, 13 May 2026 20:58:40 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 13, 2026 at 06:12:25PM +0200, Aldo Conte wrote:
> > On 5/13/26 13:23, Andy Shevchenko wrote:  
> > > On Wed, May 13, 2026 at 12:32:15AM +0200, Aldo Conte wrote:  
> 
> ...
> 
> > Thanks for the review. Before I send v3, I want to make sure I split
> > the series the way you want.
> > 
> > My plan is to split v2 into 7 patches:
> > 
> >   1. sort headers (same as v2)
> >   2. convert locking to guard(mutex) (drop Suggested-by, clean up
> >      trigger_handler)
> >   3. replace == NULL with ! (add Suggested-by: Joshua Crofts)
> >   4. use devm for resource management (drop Suggested-by, remove the
> >      dev_info change, add devm_mutex_init)
I made a few suggestions in reply to that patch on stuff to move out
of it etc.

> >   5. use 'dev' for dev_info() calls (new, taken out of patch 4)
> >   6. implement wait time and sampling_frequency (drop Suggested-by,
> >      fix macro style, simplify cycle_us and all the other revisions)
> >   7. move standalone return to default case (same as v2)  
> 
> (Also collect tags for the patches that are not [drastically] changed, like #7
>  here.)
> 
> > Two things I am not sure about:
> > 
> >   - Should patch 3 ("replace == NULL with !") really be its own patch,
> >     or do you prefer it inside patch 4, since that line is right next
> >     to devm_iio_device_alloc?  
> 
> Jonathan is okay to combine in some cases, but I'm not sure if this is small
> enough. Ask him?

Slight preference for a separate patch - or just skip it.  There are lots
more things that could be tidied up in this driver I think. You don't have
to do them all!

> 
> >   - Is patch 5 (dev_info refactor) in the right place after the devm
> >     patch?  
> 
> Basically sort patches by severity, with this in mind seems you suggested
> the right order.

I would add for this that, to reduce churn it's fine to add the
struct device *dev = ... bit and use it in new devm calls. Just do the
remainder in the follow on commit.

> 
>