Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] rust: refactor to_result to return the original value

[Onur <work@onurozkan.dev>]

On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 20:43:08 +0300
Onur Özkan <work@onurozkan.dev> wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 19:17:56 +0200
> Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 7:01 PM Onur Özkan <work@onurozkan.dev>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > This patch only fixes the callers that broke after the changes on
> > > `to_result`. I haven't included all the improvements made possible
> > > by the new design since
> > 
> > I think Daniel asked in the previous version what you mean by
> > "callers that broke" here -- it is a bit confusing, since it seems
> > this is a fix (and thus needs to be prioritized).
> > 
> > Is that the case?
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Miguel
> 
> What I meant is that the change on `to_result` signature introduced a
> breaking change so I had to update its callers accordingly.
> 
> The fix I mentioned in this version is a different matter.
> 
> Before the rebase, the regulator module had a get_voltage function
> like this:
> 
> 	let voltage = unsafe {...};
> 
> 	if voltage < 0 {
>     		Err(...)
> 	} else {
>     		Ok(Voltage::from_microvolts(voltage))
> 	}
> 
> But on the regulator/for-next branch, a patch was applied that changed
> it to:
> 
> 	let voltage = unsafe {...};
> 	to_result(voltage).map(|()| Voltage::from_microvolts(voltage))
> 
> That change was incompatible with v1 (due to the different signature
> of to_result), which fails to build with my patch. This version (v2)
> fixes the issue introduced in v1.
> 
> Sorry for the confusion, I hope it's more clear now.
> 
> Thanks,
> Onur

If I am not mistaken the way I prepared v2 is also not correct. I guess
the fix for regulator/for-next should be a separate patch.