Re: [PATCH v3 06/10] Input: cap11xx - add reset gpio support

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] Coding style violations: redundant 'else' after 'return' and inconsistent brace usage.
--

commit 2a7317102372f10d4bd76864cfeaec2d7955c415
Author: Jun Yan <jerrysteve1101@gmail.com>

Input: cap11xx - add reset gpio support

This commit adds support for an optional hardware reset pin on CAP11xx
devices to improve reliability and ensure proper initialization during probe.

> diff --git a/drivers/input/keyboard/cap11xx.c b/drivers/input/keyboard/cap11xx.c
> --- a/drivers/input/keyboard/cap11xx.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/keyboard/cap11xx.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -452,6 +457,16 @@ static int cap11xx_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c_client)
>  	if (IS_ERR(priv->regmap))
>  		return PTR_ERR(priv->regmap);
>  
> +	priv->reset_gpio = devm_gpiod_get_optional(dev, "reset", GPIOD_OUT_HIGH);
> +	if (IS_ERR(priv->reset_gpio))
> +		return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(priv->reset_gpio),
> +				     "Failed to get 'reset' GPIO\n");
> +	else if (priv->reset_gpio) {

[Severity: Low]
This isn't a bug, but does this follow the standard kernel coding style?

Since the preceding if statement ends with a return, the else keyword here
is redundant. Additionally, kernel style guidelines generally prefer that if
one branch of a conditional requires braces, all branches should use them.

Could this be simplified by dropping the else and just using a separate if
statement for checking priv->reset_gpio?

> +		usleep_range(CAP11XX_T_RST_FILT_MIN_US, CAP11XX_T_RST_FILT_MIN_US * 2);
> +		gpiod_set_value_cansleep(priv->reset_gpio, 0);
> +		msleep(CAP11XX_T_RST_ON_MIN_MS);
> +	}
> +
>  	error = regmap_read(priv->regmap, CAP11XX_REG_PRODUCT_ID, &val);

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260615142103.352163-1-jerrysteve1101@gmail.com?part=6