2021-01-20 07:33:30

by Abaci Team

Subject: [PATCH] pinctrl: qcom: spmi-gpio: Assign boolean values to a bool variable

Fix the following coccicheck warnings:

./drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-ssbi-gpio.c:340:3-15: WARNING:
Assignment of 0/1 to bool variable.

Reported-by: Abaci Robot <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jiapeng Zhong <[email protected]>
---
drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-ssbi-gpio.c | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-ssbi-gpio.c b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-ssbi-gpio.c
index b5949f7..eb0b60c 100644
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-ssbi-gpio.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-ssbi-gpio.c
@@ -331,13 +331,13 @@ static int pm8xxx_pin_config_set(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
case PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_DISABLE:
pin->bias = PM8XXX_GPIO_BIAS_NP;
banks |= BIT(2);
- pin->disable = 0;
+ pin->disable = false;
banks |= BIT(3);
break;
case PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_PULL_DOWN:
pin->bias = PM8XXX_GPIO_BIAS_PD;
banks |= BIT(2);
- pin->disable = 0;
+ pin->disable = false;
banks |= BIT(3);
break;
case PM8XXX_QCOM_PULL_UP_STRENGTH:
@@ -350,11 +350,11 @@ static int pm8xxx_pin_config_set(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
case PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_PULL_UP:
pin->bias = pin->pull_up_strength;
banks |= BIT(2);
- pin->disable = 0;
+ pin->disable = false;
banks |= BIT(3);
break;
case PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_HIGH_IMPEDANCE:
- pin->disable = 1;
+ pin->disable = true;
banks |= BIT(3);
break;
case PIN_CONFIG_INPUT_ENABLE:
--
1.8.3.1

2021-01-21 05:59:16

by Bjorn Andersson

Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: qcom: spmi-gpio: Assign boolean values to a bool variable

On Wed 20 Jan 01:29 CST 2021, Jiapeng Zhong wrote:

> Fix the following coccicheck warnings:
>
> ./drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-ssbi-gpio.c:340:3-15: WARNING:
> Assignment of 0/1 to bool variable.
>
> Reported-by: Abaci Robot <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Jiapeng Zhong <[email protected]>

Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson <[email protected]>

Although we're mixing bool/int on line 417 and 637 as well, with:

val |= pin->disable;

and

pin->disable = val & BIT(0);

respectively. The latter could be dealt with using !!(val & BIT(0)); I
guess the appropriate for for the prior is:

if (pin->disable)
val |= BIT(0);

If you would like to update your patch with these as well I'd be happy
to review this.

Thanks,
Bjorn

> ---
> drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-ssbi-gpio.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-ssbi-gpio.c b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-ssbi-gpio.c
> index b5949f7..eb0b60c 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-ssbi-gpio.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-ssbi-gpio.c
> @@ -331,13 +331,13 @@ static int pm8xxx_pin_config_set(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
> case PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_DISABLE:
> pin->bias = PM8XXX_GPIO_BIAS_NP;
> banks |= BIT(2);
> - pin->disable = 0;
> + pin->disable = false;
> banks |= BIT(3);
> break;
> case PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_PULL_DOWN:
> pin->bias = PM8XXX_GPIO_BIAS_PD;
> banks |= BIT(2);
> - pin->disable = 0;
> + pin->disable = false;
> banks |= BIT(3);
> break;
> case PM8XXX_QCOM_PULL_UP_STRENGTH:
> @@ -350,11 +350,11 @@ static int pm8xxx_pin_config_set(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
> case PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_PULL_UP:
> pin->bias = pin->pull_up_strength;
> banks |= BIT(2);
> - pin->disable = 0;
> + pin->disable = false;
> banks |= BIT(3);
> break;
> case PIN_CONFIG_BIAS_HIGH_IMPEDANCE:
> - pin->disable = 1;
> + pin->disable = true;
> banks |= BIT(3);
> break;
> case PIN_CONFIG_INPUT_ENABLE:
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>

2021-01-22 13:19:33

by Linus Walleij

Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: qcom: spmi-gpio: Assign boolean values to a bool variable

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 4:19 AM Bjorn Andersson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed 20 Jan 01:29 CST 2021, Jiapeng Zhong wrote:
>
> > Fix the following coccicheck warnings:
> >
> > ./drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-ssbi-gpio.c:340:3-15: WARNING:
> > Assignment of 0/1 to bool variable.
> >
> > Reported-by: Abaci Robot <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Jiapeng Zhong <[email protected]>
>
> Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson <[email protected]>
>
> Although we're mixing bool/int on line 417 and 637 as well, with:
>
> val |= pin->disable;
>
> and
>
> pin->disable = val & BIT(0);
>
> respectively. The latter could be dealt with using !!(val & BIT(0)); I
> guess the appropriate for for the prior is:
>
> if (pin->disable)
> val |= BIT(0);
>
> If you would like to update your patch with these as well I'd be happy
> to review this.

I would opt for a respin with the above when we are anyways at it,
no hurry as it is no regression anyway.

Yours,
Linus Walleij