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.
>> + 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?
Thanks,
Antony K. S.
