[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101027175620.GB25134@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:56:21 -0700
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Thiago Farina <tfransosi@...il.com>
Cc: Sundar Iyer <sundar.iyer@...ricsson.com>, lrg@...mlogic.co.uk,
sameo@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
STEricsson_nomadik_linux@...t.st.com,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
Bengt JONSSON <bengt.g.jonsson@...ricsson.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] regulator: add support for regulators on the
ab8500 MFD
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 03:42:53PM -0200, Thiago Farina wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Mark Brown
> > There is no reason to do this, logical values are treated as 0 and 1 in
> > C. Using false and true is clear and won't cause any difference in
> > code.
> In C99 I suppose that is true and legal?
Yes. C has always used 1 and 0 as the numerical mappings for logical
values, the addition of the keywords did not change them.
> >> Maybe like this?
> >> return (ret & info->mask) ? 1: 0;
> > No, that's needlessly obfuscated.
> Obfuscated? What you mean? It is a driver, and people reading and
> writing a driver would know what it means, no?
Adding the ternery operator just makes the code more noisy for no
benefit.
> Would be much simpler if it was just (like done in ab3100.c):
> return (ret & info->mask);
Yes, though there's no problem with the current code either.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists