Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] iio: adc: ti-ads7950: switch to using guard() notation

[Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Feb 21, 2026 at 11:20:42AM -0600, David Lechner wrote:
> On 2/19/26 1:51 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 18, 2026 at 06:29:27PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >> guard() notation allows early returns when encountering errors, making
> > 
> > guard()()
> > 
> > // strictly speaking
> > 
> >> control flow more obvious. Use it.
> > 
> > I like the change, but...
> > 
> >> Also variables that now only hold error codes (or 0) are renamed to
> >> "error" to make their purpose clearer.
> 
> Normally I would not give my opinion on this, but since I wrote the driver
> originally, I will say please don't rename. I prefer to always use "ret".

I hope I can convince you otherwise.

IMO "ret" or "retval" should be used when the returned value is intended
to be used during normal operation. For cases where we only expect to
have an error or 0 for success "error" or "err" is more appropriate.
This allows you to write

	error = do_action(...);
	if (error) {
		// handle error somehow, typically simply report.
	}

This also helps when reading the code as you know that there is usually
no reason to care about the specific value in this variable (maybe
except -EPROBE_DEFER).

I will push the conversion ret -> error to the very last patch so it can
easily be dropped if I am unsuccessful in swaying your opinion.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry