Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] iio: imu: inv_icm42600: Simplify pm_runtime setup

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Sat, Aug 9, 2025 at 8:06 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2025 23:37:51 +0200
> Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 5:58 PM Sean Nyekjaer <sean@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

...

> > > +       struct device *dev = regmap_get_device(st->map);
> > >
> > > +       if (!pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev))
> > > +               regulator_disable(st->vddio_supply);
> >
> > I would rather use positive conditional as it seems to me more scalable
>
> To potentially save time when Sean looks at this.  I don't follow. Do you mean
> something like
>         if (pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev))
>                 return;
>
>         regulator_disable(st->vddio_supply);
>
> ?

Yes.

> If so I'm not seeing why we'd want this to scale as it's a single use
> devm_set_action_or_reset() callback doing just one thing.

While I agree in _this_ case, in general the check and return
immediately is more scalable for reading purposes, e.g., indentation
will be one level less. Also it won't require additional churn in
adding {, i.e. changing conditional line just for that.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko