Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6a62a531227cd4f20d77d50cdde60c7a18b9f052.1643625325.git.geert+renesas@glider.be>
 <CAHp75Vd68gsU-NWTGv4Y7Mo4-Vq7DBePa_yVxpDq=DAN5GLEBA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMuHMdUq3qZqVHH-QSVnwemVRyCp7b2Ldd-7Q2V8CXcj0+9aow@mail.gmail.com> <CAHp75VccHbfmmk7bEXRrQOcePYxCb28sEY-RV6GBCgXAo8A5Sw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75VccHbfmmk7bEXRrQOcePYxCb28sEY-RV6GBCgXAo8A5Sw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Date:   Wed, 2 Feb 2022 11:54:20 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMRc=MeytMp7JSZUZ+6hz=g77dF1sp83uRMbf5bqvVgKneyV+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: aggregator: Fix calling into sleeping GPIO controllers
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Mikko_Salom=C3=A4ki?= <ms@datarespons.se>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 9:59 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 10:54 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 9:35 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 10:09 PM Geert Uytterhoeven
> > > <geert+renesas@glider.be> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > +       return chip->can_sleep ? gpiod_get_value_cansleep(fwd->descs[offset])
> > > > +                              : gpiod_get_value(fwd->descs[offset]);
> > >
> > > This indentation kills the perfectionist in me :-)
> >
> > Why? The above is aligned perfectly ("?" just above ":")?
> >
> > > What about:
> > >
> > >        return chip->can_sleep ?
> > >                gpiod_get_value_cansleep(fwd->descs[offset]) :
> > > gpiod_get_value(fwd->descs[offset]);
> > >
> > > ?
> > >
> > > Or as variant
> > >
> > >        struct gpio_desc *desc = fwd->descs[offset];
> > >
> > >        return chip->can_sleep ? gpiod_get_value_cansleep(desc) :
> > > gpiod_get_value(desc);
> > >
> > > ?
> >
> > IMHO, those are ugly as hell ;-)
>
> I have the same opinion about your initial variant. :-)
>
> So, up to the maintainer(s) what to do.
>

It's Geert's code so let's keep his version. I like it better myself too.

Queued for fixes.

Bart