[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121024060138.GE9787@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 08:01:38 +0200
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Kim, Milo" <Milo.Kim@...com>, Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lp855x_bl: use generic PWM functions
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 03:30:12PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:45:14 +0000
> "Kim, Milo" <Milo.Kim@...com> wrote:
>
> > > Generally this looks good. Obviously you'll need to update any users of
> > > this driver as well. It might make sense to include those changes in
> > > this patch to avoid interim build failures.
> >
> > Thanks for your review.
> > So far no usages for this driver in the mainline.
> > I've tested it in my own development environment instead.
> >
> > > Other than that I have just one smaller comment below.
> > >
> > > > + pwm_config(lp->pwm, duty, period);
> > > > + duty == 0 ? pwm_disable(lp->pwm) : pwm_enable(lp->pwm);
> > >
> > > This is really ugly and should be written explicitly:
> > >
> > > if (duty == 0)
> > > pwm_disable(lp->pwm);
> > > else
> > > pwm_enable(lp->pwm);
> >
> > Oh, I prefer using '?' to if-sentence because it looks clear to me.
> > But if it's difficult to read/understand, I'll fix it.
> > I'd like to have others' opinion.
> >
>
> Hey, it's better than
>
> (*(duty ? pwm_enable : pwm_disable))(lp->pwm);
>
> !
Indeed. Fortunately there don't seem to be overly many of those. Anyway,
thanks for taking these patches.
Thierry
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists