Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 28 Jan 2019 13:26:56 -0700
From:   Jerry Hoemann <jerry.hoemann@hpe.com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc:     Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>,
        mazziesaccount@gmail.com, heikki.haikola@fi.rohmeurope.com,
        mikko.mutanen@fi.rohmeurope.com, lee.jones@linaro.org,
        robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, broonie@kernel.org,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, rafael@kernel.org,
        mturquette@baylibre.com, sboyd@kernel.org,
        linus.walleij@linaro.org, bgolaszewski@baylibre.com,
        sre@kernel.org, lgirdwood@gmail.com, a.zummo@towertech.it,
        alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com, wim@linux-watchdog.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 08/10] rtc: bd70528: Initial support for ROHM
 bd70528 RTC
Message-ID: <20190128202656.GA17466@anatevka>
Reply-To: Jerry.Hoemann@hpe.com
References: <20190125110536.GA29321@localhost.localdomain>
 <35bbc5b9-5f8c-ec80-3eaa-bb2c0e2812c9@roeck-us.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <35bbc5b9-5f8c-ec80-3eaa-bb2c0e2812c9@roeck-us.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 08:30:24AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 1/25/19 3:05 AM, Matti Vaittinen wrote:


> > +static int bd70528_set_wake(struct bd70528 *bd70528,
> > +			    int enable, int *old_state)
> > +{
> > +	int ret;
> > +	unsigned int ctrl_reg;
> > +
> > +	ret = regmap_read(bd70528->chip.regmap, BD70528_REG_WAKE_EN, &ctrl_reg);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		return ret;
> > +
> > +	if (old_state) {
> > +		if (ctrl_reg & BD70528_MASK_WAKE_EN)
> > +			*old_state |= BD70528_WAKE_STATE_BIT;
> > +		else
> > +			*old_state &= ~BD70528_WAKE_STATE_BIT;
> > +
> > +		if ((!enable) == (!(*old_state & BD70528_WAKE_STATE_BIT)))
> > +			return 0;
> 
> I think
> 		if (enable == !!(*old_state & BD70528_WAKE_STATE_BIT))
> would be much better readable. Even if not, there are way too many ()
> in the above conditional.
> 

The substitution is not equivalent to original.  I think you mean:

 		if (!!enable == !!(*old_state & BD70528_WAKE_STATE_BIT))


-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Hoemann                  Software Engineer   Hewlett Packard Enterprise
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------