[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190919091728.24756-1-linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 11:17:27 +0200
From: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
Cc: David Wu <david.wu@...k-chips.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] pwm: rockchip: simplify rockchip_pwm_get_state()
The way state->enabled is computed is rather convoluted and hard to
read - both branches of the if() actually do the exact same thing. So
remove the if(), and further simplify "<boolean condition> ? true :
false" to "<boolean condition>".
Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
---
I stumbled on this while trying to understand how the pwm subsystem
works. This patch is a semantic no-op, but it's also possible that,
say, the first branch simply contains a "double negative" so either
the != should be == or the "false : true" should be "true : false".
drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c | 7 +------
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
index 51b96cb7dd25..54c6399e3f00 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
@@ -83,12 +83,7 @@ static void rockchip_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip,
state->duty_cycle = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(tmp, clk_rate);
val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
- if (pc->data->supports_polarity)
- state->enabled = ((val & enable_conf) != enable_conf) ?
- false : true;
- else
- state->enabled = ((val & enable_conf) == enable_conf) ?
- true : false;
+ state->enabled = ((val & enable_conf) == enable_conf);
if (pc->data->supports_polarity) {
if (!(val & PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE))
--
2.20.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists