linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 13/13] iio: adc: axp20x_adc: remove !! in favor of ternary condition

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 24 Feb 2018 12:20:29 +0000
From:   Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To:     Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@...tlin.com>
Cc:     sre@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        wens@...e.org, linux@...linux.org.uk, maxime.ripard@...tlin.com,
        knaack.h@....de, lars@...afoo.de, pmeerw@...erw.net,
        lee.jones@...aro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
        thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com, linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 13/13] iio: adc: axp20x_adc: remove !! in favor of
 ternary condition

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 13:47:36 +0100
Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@...tlin.com> wrote:

> !!'s behaviour isn't that obvious and sparse complained about it, so
> let's replace it with a ternary condition.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@...tlin.com>
Applied to the togreg branch of iio.git and pushed out as testing
for the autobuilders to play with it.

Thanks,

Jonathan

> ---
>  drivers/iio/adc/axp20x_adc.c | 8 +++++---
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/axp20x_adc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/axp20x_adc.c
> index a30a972..7a745cf 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/axp20x_adc.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/axp20x_adc.c
> @@ -365,7 +365,7 @@ static int axp20x_adc_offset_voltage(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, int channel,
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  	}
>  
> -	*val = !!(*val) * 700000;
> +	*val = *val ? 700000 : 0;
>  
>  	return IIO_VAL_INT;
>  }
> @@ -442,15 +442,17 @@ static int axp20x_write_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
>  	if (val != 0 && val != 700000)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> +	val = val ? 1 : 0;
> +
>  	switch (chan->channel) {
>  	case AXP20X_GPIO0_V:
>  		reg = AXP20X_GPIO10_IN_RANGE_GPIO0;
> -		regval = AXP20X_GPIO10_IN_RANGE_GPIO0_VAL(!!val);
> +		regval = AXP20X_GPIO10_IN_RANGE_GPIO0_VAL(val);
>  		break;
>  
>  	case AXP20X_GPIO1_V:
>  		reg = AXP20X_GPIO10_IN_RANGE_GPIO1;
> -		regval = AXP20X_GPIO10_IN_RANGE_GPIO1_VAL(!!val);
> +		regval = AXP20X_GPIO10_IN_RANGE_GPIO1_VAL(val);
>  		break;
>  
>  	default: