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: <208e3f8b-75ca-9bb0-ad43-7489709fcae0@nvidia.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 Jan 2020 10:38:39 +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 9:55 AM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> 24.01.2020 06:27, Sameer Pujar пишет:
>>
>> 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.
> At least most of code in kernel (I've seen) doesn't have superfluous
> parens (the curvy thingies actually should be the braces). Readability
> is arguable in this case, I'm finding such code a bit more difficult to
> read, although in some cases parens and spacing may help to read more
> complex constructions.

Yes this is subjective and depends on the individual reading the code. It is
confusing every time, for the sender, about which guideline to follow. 
Resending
the patch/series for only this reason may not be really necessary. Since 
I need
to fix couple of issues in this series I may consider removing the 
explicit braces.