Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 4 May 2021 13:45:55 -0500
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
Cc:     Greentime Hu <greentime.hu@sifive.com>, paul.walmsley@sifive.com,
        hes@sifive.com, erik.danie@sifive.com, zong.li@sifive.com,
        bhelgaas@google.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, aou@eecs.berkeley.edu,
        mturquette@baylibre.com, sboyd@kernel.org,
        lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, p.zabel@pengutronix.de,
        alex.dewar90@gmail.com, khilman@baylibre.com,
        hayashi.kunihiko@socionext.com, vidyas@nvidia.com,
        jh80.chung@samsung.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/6] clk: sifive: Add pcie_aux clock in prci driver
 for PCIe driver
Message-ID: <20210504184555.GA1144324@bjorn-Precision-5520>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YJGOqaMulHzR9BZq@unreal>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 09:12:57PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 11:23:31AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:

> > There are some weird/interesting bool vs int usages nearby, though:
> > 
> >   "bool __is_clk_gate_enabled()" goes to some trouble to convert
> >   int to bool ("return (reg_val & bit_mask) != 0;"), and then
> >   kona_peri_clk_is_enabled() converts the bool back to int ("return
> >   is_clk_gate_enabled(bcm_clk->ccu, gate) ? 1 : 0;").
> > 
> >   "int lpc32xx_clk_gate_is_enabled()" actually returns a bool that is
> >   implicitly converted to int.
> > 
> >   Many *_is_enabled() functions return !!(...) where !! is an
> >   int-to-bool conversion that is arguably unnecessary and again
> >   results in an implicit conversion to int.
> > 
> > I don't see any *problems* with any of these; it just seems like a
> > little more mental effort to think about all the explicit and implicit
> > conversions going on.
> 
> The code is written once but read many times and I can't agree with
> your that examples given by you are not the *problems*. They clearly
> says "the API is not great and easily can be improved".

I certainly agree that it's easier for readers if the style is
consistent.  I just meant I didn't see anything that's an actual bug.  

Bjorn