[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1470003741.3998.140.camel@perches.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 15:22:21 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>
Cc: Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ARM: pxa: fix GPIO double shifts
On Mon, 2016-08-01 at 00:04 +0200, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> writes:
[]
> > These might be better without the automatic use of ret
> >
> > return !gpio_get_value(CORGI_GPIO_AC_IN) ||
> > !gpio_get_value(CORGI_GPIO_KEY_INT) ||
> > !gpio_get_value(CORGI_GPIO_WAKEUP);
> Yeah, I thought about this when I made the patch.
>
> I supposed it was written this way so that a printk was easier to add, that's
> why I didn't change the useless variable.
>
> I have no strong opinion about this, so if you think it's worth it I can make
> the additional change.
Hi Robert. Your choice.
It was one of those, 'oh, bother' type of things but
I think it's worth it for readability and consistency.
cheers, Joe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists