[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1434097488.29733.0.camel@mtksdaap41>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 16:24:48 +0800
From: Koro Chen <koro.chen@...iatek.com>
To: Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
CC: <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
<srv_heupstream@...iatek.com>, <tiwai@...e.de>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
<lgirdwood@...il.com>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <broonie@...nel.org>,
<linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>, <galak@...eaurora.org>,
<matthias.bgg@...il.com>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH 1/3] ASoC: mediatek: Add AFE platform driver
On Fri, 2015-06-12 at 09:37 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-06-12 at 09:55 +0800, Koro Chen wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 09:03 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > > (What does negating a bool twice do?)
> > >
> > Because bool actually can be unsigned char, although actually in this
> > driver, the caller always passes "true" or "false" to this function.
>
> bool is _Bool in the kernel (see include/linux/types.h). So whenever you
> see a bool in the kernel you can assume it's either 0 or 1. Are there
> any cases where this conveniently simple rule doesn't hold?
>
> But here the discussion is moot, because as you say, the function will
> only be passed false or true so we know "enable" is either 0 or 1 and
> double negating will do nothing.
>
> > Do you think if this is the case, should I still need to do !!?
>
> So you should not, as it's confusing at best.
>
OK, thank you. I will drop it in the next version of patch.
> Thanks,
>
>
> Paul Bolle
>
--
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