[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOZdJXVpDSk2AWT7pYjrsk5HUmAeosCNf8zWX1CEEtZshAh9Sw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 22:25:52 -0600
From: Timur Tabi <timur@...nel.org>
To: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Cc: Qiang Zhao <qiang.zhao@....com>, Li Yang <leoyang.li@....com>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Scott Wood <oss@...error.net>, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 32/47] serial: ucc_uart: use of_property_read_u32() in ucc_uart_probe()
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 7:03 AM Rasmus Villemoes
<linux@...musvillemoes.dk> wrote:
>
> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "cell-index", &val) &&
> + of_property_read_u32(np, "device-id", &val)) {
I know that this is technically correct, but it's obfuscated IMHO.
'val' is set correctly only when of_property_read_u32(...) is "false",
which is doubly-weird because of_property_read_u32(...) doesn't
actually return a boolean.
I would rather you break this into two if-statements like the original code.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists