linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 08/10] rtc: bd70528: Initial support for ROHM bd70528 RTC

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 28 Jan 2019 13:26:56 -0700
From:   Jerry Hoemann <jerry.hoemann@....com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
        mazziesaccount@...il.com, heikki.haikola@...rohmeurope.com,
        mikko.mutanen@...rohmeurope.com, lee.jones@...aro.org,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com, broonie@...nel.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, rafael@...nel.org,
        mturquette@...libre.com, sboyd@...nel.org,
        linus.walleij@...aro.org, bgolaszewski@...libre.com,
        sre@...nel.org, lgirdwood@...il.com, a.zummo@...ertech.it,
        alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com, wim@...ux-watchdog.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 08/10] rtc: bd70528: Initial support for ROHM
 bd70528 RTC

On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 08:30:24AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 1/25/19 3:05 AM, Matti Vaittinen wrote:



> > +static int bd70528_set_wake(struct bd70528 *bd70528,
> > +			    int enable, int *old_state)
> > +{
> > +	int ret;
> > +	unsigned int ctrl_reg;
> > +
> > +	ret = regmap_read(bd70528->chip.regmap, BD70528_REG_WAKE_EN, &ctrl_reg);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		return ret;
> > +
> > +	if (old_state) {
> > +		if (ctrl_reg & BD70528_MASK_WAKE_EN)
> > +			*old_state |= BD70528_WAKE_STATE_BIT;
> > +		else
> > +			*old_state &= ~BD70528_WAKE_STATE_BIT;
> > +
> > +		if ((!enable) == (!(*old_state & BD70528_WAKE_STATE_BIT)))
> > +			return 0;
> 
> I think
> 		if (enable == !!(*old_state & BD70528_WAKE_STATE_BIT))
> would be much better readable. Even if not, there are way too many ()
> in the above conditional.
> 

The substitution is not equivalent to original.  I think you mean:

 		if (!!enable == !!(*old_state & BD70528_WAKE_STATE_BIT))



-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Hoemann                  Software Engineer   Hewlett Packard Enterprise
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------