Re: [PATCH 5/8] iio: accel: kx022a: Switch to sparse friendly iio_device_claim/release_direct()

[Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>]

On 17/02/2025 16:01, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
> 
> These new functions allow sparse to find failures to release
> direct mode reducing chances of bugs over the claim_direct_mode()
> functions that are deprecated.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
> Cc: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
> ---
>   drivers/iio/accel/kionix-kx022a.c | 14 ++++++--------
>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/accel/kionix-kx022a.c b/drivers/iio/accel/kionix-kx022a.c
> index 727e007c5fc1..07dcf5f0599f 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/accel/kionix-kx022a.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/accel/kionix-kx022a.c
> @@ -577,13 +577,12 @@ static int kx022a_write_raw(struct iio_dev *idev,
>   	 * issues if users trust the watermark to be reached within known
>   	 * time-limit).
>   	 */
> -	ret = iio_device_claim_direct_mode(idev);
> -	if (ret)
> -		return ret;
> +	if (!iio_device_claim_direct(idev))
> +		return -EBUSY;

Not really in the scope of this review - but in my opinion the logic of 
this check is terribly counter intuitive. I mean,

 > +	if (iio_device_claim_direct(idev))
 > +		return -EBUSY;

would feel much more familiar. I actually had to look up the 
implementation of the iio_device_claim_direct() to see this was not a bug.

Other than that this looks very good to me.

Yours,
	-- Matti