[PATCH v2 03/15] iio: inkern: only return error codes in iio_channel_get_*() APIs

[Nuno Sá]

On Mon, 2022-07-11 at 15:29 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 2:38 PM Nuno Sá <nuno.sa at analog.com> wrote:
> > 
> > APIs like of_iio_channel_get_by_name() and of_iio_channel_get_all()
> > were
> > returning a mix of NULL and pointers with NULL being the way to
> > "notify" that we should do a "system" lookup for channels. This
> > make
> > it very confusing and prone to errors as commit 9f63cc0921ec
> > ("iio: inkern: fix return value in
> > devm_of_iio_channel_get_by_name()")
> > proves. On top of this, patterns like 'if (channel != NULL) return
> > channel' were being used where channel could actually be an error
> > code
> > which makes the code hard to read.
> > 
> > This change also makes some functional changes on how errors were
> > being
> > handled. In the original behavior, even if we get an error like '-
> > ENOMEM',
> > we still continue with the search. We should only continue to
> > lookup for
> > the channel when it makes sense to do so. Hence, the main error
> > handling
> > in 'of_iio_channel_get_by_name()' is changed to the following
> > logic:
> > 
> >  * If a channel 'name' is provided and we do find it via
> > 'io-channel-names', we should be able to get it. If we get any
> > error,
> > we should not proceed with the lookup. Moreover, we should return
> > an error
> > so that callers won't proceed with a system lookup.
> >  * If a channel 'name' is provided and we cannot find it ('index <
> > 0'),
> > 'of_parse_phandle_with_args()' is expected to fail with '-EINVAL'.
> > Hence,
> > we should only continue if we get that error.
> >  * If a channel 'name' is not provided we should only carry on with
> > the
> > search if 'of_parse_phandle_with_args()' returns '-ENOENT'.
> > 
> > Also note that a system channel lookup is only done if the returned
> > error code (from 'of_iio_channel_get_by_name()' or
> > 'of_iio_channel_get_all()' is -ENODEV.
> 
> LGTM (but I might miss something, it's a bit too many conditionals),
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko at gmail.com>
> 

Agreed. It ended up being more complicated than I thought...

- Nuno Sá