linux-kernel - Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH 7/9] ASoC: tegra: add Tegra210 based ADMAIF driver

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]

Message-ID: <3759aa0b-9e56-0fb4-27b7-4f98898d4e22@nvidia.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 Jan 2020 08:57:40 +0530
From:   Sameer Pujar <spujar@...dia.com>
To:     Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>, <perex@...ex.cz>,
        <tiwai@...e.com>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>
CC:     <spujar@...dia.com>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>, <atalambedu@...dia.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        <jonathanh@...dia.com>, <viswanathl@...dia.com>,
        <sharadg@...dia.com>, <broonie@...nel.org>,
        <thierry.reding@...il.com>, <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
        <rlokhande@...dia.com>, <mkumard@...dia.com>, <dramesh@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH 7/9] ASoC: tegra: add Tegra210 based ADMAIF
 driver



On 1/24/2020 6:58 AM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> 20.01.2020 17:23, Sameer Pujar пишет:
> [snip]
>> +static bool tegra_admaif_wr_reg(struct device *dev, unsigned int reg)
>> +{
>> +     struct tegra_admaif *admaif = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>> +     unsigned int ch_stride = TEGRA_ADMAIF_CHANNEL_REG_STRIDE;
>> +     unsigned int num_ch = admaif->soc_data->num_ch;
>> +     unsigned int rx_base = admaif->soc_data->rx_base;
>> +     unsigned int tx_base = admaif->soc_data->tx_base;
>> +     unsigned int global_base = admaif->soc_data->global_base;
>> +     unsigned int reg_max = admaif->soc_data->regmap_conf->max_register;
>> +     unsigned int rx_max = rx_base + (num_ch * ch_stride);
>> +     unsigned int tx_max = tx_base + (num_ch * ch_stride);
>> +
>> +     if ((reg >= rx_base) && (reg < rx_max)) {
> The braces are not needed around the comparisons because they precede
> the AND. Same for all other similar occurrences in the code.

While that is true, some prefer to use explicit braces to make it more 
readable.
In the past I was told to use explicitly in such cases.