Re: [PATCH v8 5/5] iio: light: Add support for APDS9306 Light Sensor

[Subhajit Ghosh]

On 29/2/24 03:57, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 03:08:56PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > On 2/28/24 14:24, Subhajit Ghosh wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > +	ret = iio_gts_find_new_gain_by_old_gain_time(&data->gts, gain_old,
> > > +						     intg_old, val2, &gain_new);
> >
> > You don't use the 'ret' here, so maybe for the clarity, not assign it.
> > Or, maybe you wan't to try to squeeze out few cycles for succesful case and
> > check the ret for '0' - in which case you should be able to omit the check
> > right below as well as the call to iio_find_closest_gain_low(). OTOH, this
> > is likely not a "hot path" so I don't care too much about the extra call if
> > you think code is clearer this way.
> >
> > > +	if (gain_new < 0) {
> > > +		dev_err_ratelimited(dev, "Unsupported gain with time\n");
> > > +		return gain_new;
> > > +	}
>
> What is the difference between negative response from the function itself and
> similar in gain_new?
-ve response form the function is an error condition.
-ve value in gain_new means - no valid gains could be computed.
In case of error conditions from the function, the gain_new is also set to -1.
My use case is valid hardware gain so I went for checking only gain_new.
Matti will be the best person to answer on this.

Regards,
Subhajit Ghosh