Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] iio: adc: ad7192: use devm_regulator_get_enable_read_voltage

[Alisa-Dariana Roman <alisadariana@gmail.com>]

On 17.06.2024 16:22, David Lechner wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 4:35 AM Alisa-Dariana Roman
> <alisadariana@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 15.06.2024 15:08, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 16:03:05 -0500
>>> David Lechner <dlechner@baylibre.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This makes use of the new devm_regulator_get_enable_read_voltage()
>>>> function to reduce boilerplate code.
>>>>
>>>> Error messages have changed slightly since there are now fewer places
>>>> where we print an error. The rest of the logic of selecting which
>>>> supply to use as the reference voltage remains the same.
>>>>
>>>> Also 1000 is replaced by MILLI in a few places for consistency.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: David Lechner <dlechner@baylibre.com>
>>>
>>> Complicated bit of code, but seems correct.
>>> However, it crossed with Alisa-Dariana switching adding a
>>> struct device *dev = &spi->dev to probe() that I picked up earlier
>>> today.
>>>
>>> I could unwind that but given Alisa-Dariana has a number of
>>> other patches on this driver in flight, I'd like the two of you
>>> to work out the best resolution between you.  Maybe easiest option
>>> is that Alisa-Dariana sends this a first patch of the next
>>> series I should pick up.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>> I will add this patch to my series and send it shortly.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Alisa-Dariana Roman.
> 
> Great, thanks!

Just one quick question:

I am getting two such warnings when running the checkpatch script:

WARNING: else is not generally useful after a break or return
#1335: FILE: ./drivers/iio/adc/ad7192.c:1335:
+		return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Failed to get AVDD voltage\n");
+	} else {

Should I switch the last two branches to get rid of the warnings or just 
ignore them?