On Mon, 23 May 2011, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > +{
> > > + struct mt9p031 *mt9p031 = to_mt9p031(client);
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + /* Disable chip output, synchronous option update */
> > > + ret = reg_write(client, MT9P031_RST, MT9P031_RST_ENABLE);
> > > + if (ret < 0)
> > > + return -EIO;
> > > + ret = reg_write(client, MT9P031_RST, MT9P031_RST_DISABLE);
> > > + if (ret < 0)
> > > + return -EIO;
> > > + ret = mt9p031_set_output_control(mt9p031, MT9P031_OUTPUT_CONTROL_CEN,
> > > 0); + if (ret < 0)
> > > + return -EIO;
> > > + return 0;
> >
> > I think, a sequence like
> >
> > ret = fn();
> > if (!ret)
> > ret = fn();
> > if (!ret)
> > ret = fn();
> > return ret;
> >
> > is a better way to achieve the same.
>
> I disagree with you on that :-) I find code sequences that return as soon as
> an error occurs, using the main code path for the error-free case, easier to
> read. It can be a matter of personal taste though.
Whichever way, but it should be consistent, IMHO.
Thanks
Guennadi
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
Freelance Open-Source Software Developer
http://www.open-technology.de/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
