Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] iio: light: tcs3472: move standalone return to default case

On Sat, 16 May 2026 13:04:13 +0200
Aldo Conte <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 15/05/26 20:05, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 May 2026 20:58:40 +0300
> > Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> wrote:  
> 
> ...
> 
> > 
> > I would add for this that, to reduce churn it's fine to add the
> > struct device *dev = ... bit and use it in new devm calls. Just do the
> > remainder in the follow on commit.
> >   
> >>
> >>  
> >   
> 
> Hi Jonathan, Andy and all!
> 
> Thanks for your reviews! they’re teaching me so much!
> If I understand correctly, I need to wait a week before submitting version v3 
> such that other reviewers can comment right?
> 
> I’d like to take this opportunity to suggest two alternative lists of what 
> version v3 might look like in terms of patch order:
> 
> First option does not consider the "== NULL with !" patch and so:
> 1. iio: tcs3472: power down chip on probe failure (NEW precursor, bug fix)
> 2. iio: tcs3472: sort headers alphabetically (same)
> 3. iio: tcs3472: convert several functions to use guard(mutex)() (modified)
> 4. iio: tcs3472: use devm for resource management (slimmed down)
> 5. iio: tcs3472: use locale struct device * for remaining cases (NEW)
> 6. iio: tcs3472: implement wait time and sampling frequency (revised)
> 7. iio: tcs3472: move standalone return to default case (same as v2)
> 
> Second version will consider it:
> 1. iio: tcs3472: power down chip on probe failure (NEW precursor, bug fix)
> 2. iio: tcs3472: sort headers alphabetically (same as v2)
> 3. iio: tcs3472: convert several functions to use guard(mutex)() (modified)
> 4. iio: tcs3472: replace == NULL with ! (NEW, optional)
> 5. iio: tcs3472: use devm for resource management (slimmed down)
> 6. iio: tcs3472: use locale struct device * for remaining cases (NEW)
> 7. iio: tcs3472: implement wait time and sampling frequency (revised)
> 8. iio: tcs3472: move standalone return to default case (same as v2)
> 
> 
> What do you think?
Either is fine but swap the last two patches.  The wait time one is
more complex than that trivial cleanup so might take more revisions.

I frequently pick up the first part of series just to avoid people
having to keep sending the same unchanged code to the list (that I've
often forgotten about completely by the next version!)

Jonathan

> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Aldo