On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 12:00:52PM +0000, Antony Kurniawan Soemardi wrote:
> On 3/26/2026 5:18 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
...
> >> Tested-on: Sony Xperia SP (PM8921)
> >
> > Interesting, never saw this tag before.
>
> Oh, I just realized I misremember Tested-by tag as Tested-on... Let me
> know if it's not acceptable.
You can just put it in a free text:
"The change has been tested on ..."
...
> >> + if (!ch) {
> >> + dev_err(adc->dev, "no such channel %lu\n", chan->address);
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> + }
> >
> > Isn't it a dead code? Also poisoning dmesg with this recurrent message is
> > not good idea to begin with (the user space will have a door to flood it,
> > which might be considered as an assistance to hackers to clear immediate
> > logs after a successful attack).
>
> Good point about the successful attack hint! I was copying the existing
> code from pm8xxx_read_raw. Do you think those checks are unnecessary for
> pm8xxx_read_raw as well?
Yes, I think they are not as the returned code should be enough to identify
the problem. (For no such channel I would rather see -ENOENT, but we can't
simply replace that in the existing code as it's part of ABI.)
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
