[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121113090007.GS18224@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:00:09 +0900
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lrg@...com>, Chris Ball <cjb@...top.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] regulator: threat regulators with constant volatage
as fixed
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 09:48:52AM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> Some drivers has additional logic for fixed regulators. Let regulator core
> to threat regulators which cannot change their voltage due to applied
YM "treat".
> + if (rdev->constraints->valid_ops_mask & REGULATOR_CHANGE_VOLTAGE)
> + return rdev->desc->n_voltages ? : -EINVAL;
Please don't perpetuate the use of ? : as it's not a triumph of
legibility (even worse than the regular ternery operator). I realise
that the original code did this but there's no need to carry on doing
the same thing.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists