[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <73749107-35aa-0720-1a30-02a90c0540fa@roeck-us.net>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2022 15:09:05 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@...enzweig.io>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>,
LINUXWATCHDOG <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>,
USB <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-tegra <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:MEMORY TECHNOLOGY..." <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 10/11] watchdog: bd9576_wdt: switch to using
devm_fwnode_gpiod_get()
On 9/5/22 12:47, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
[ ... ]
>> We know that count is either 1 or 2 here, so strictly speaking
>> if (count == 1) {
>> } else {
>> }
>> would be sufficient. On the other side, that depends on ARRAY_SIZE() being
>> exactly 2, so
>> if (count == 1) {
>> } else if (count == 2) {
>> }
>> would also make sense. Either way is fine with me. I'll leave it up
>> to Dmitry to decide what he wants to do.
>
> My goal is to drop usage of devm_gpiod_get_from_of_node(), beyond that I
> do not have strong preferences either way really. It is probing code, so
> performance is not critical, but I'm obviously satisfied with how the
> code looks now, or I would not have sent it.
>
Good point.
Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists