Common pattern of handling deferred probe can be simplified with
dev_err_probe(). Less code and also it prints the error value.
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200829064726.26268-12-krzk@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
After the replacement of the /* fall through */ comment with the
fallthrough pseudo-keyword macro, the natural reading of a code
comment was broken.
Fix the natural reading of such a comment and make it intelligible.
Reported-by: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>
Acked-by: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
This patch applies the semantic patch:
@@
expression I, P, SP;
@@
I = devm_iio_device_alloc(P, SP);
...
- I->dev.parent = P;
It updates 302 files and does 307 deletions.
This semantic patch also removes some comments like
'/* Establish that the iio_dev is a child of the i2c device */'
But this is is only done in case where the block is left empty.
The patch does not seem to cover all cases. It looks like in some cases a
different variable is used in some cases to assign the parent, but it
points to the same reference.
In other cases, the block covered by ... may be just too big to be covered
by the semantic patch.
However, this looks pretty good as well, as it does cover a big bulk of the
drivers that should remove the parent assignment.
Signed-off-by: Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@analog.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.
Notice that in this particular case, I replaced "...and fall through."
with the specific string "fall through", which is what GCC is
expecting to find thus supressing this false positive.
As Peter has observed this breaks the nice English flow, which is
less than ideal, but short of teaching GCC to read English, there
isn't a lot that we can do about it.
Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1462408 ("Missing break in switch")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
The equivalent of this is now done via macro magic when
the relevant register call is made. The actual structure
element will shortly go away.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
Reviewed-by: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>
It is assumed that the dpot is used as a voltage divider between the
current dpot wiper setting and the maximum resistance of the dpot. The
divided voltage is provided by a vref regulator.
.------.
.-----------. | |
| vref |--' .---.
| regulator |--. | |
'-----------' | | d |
| | p |
| | o | wiper
| | t |<---------+
| | |
| '---' dac output voltage
| |
'------+------------+
Signed-off-by: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
Greg Kroah-Hartman