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: <20221123194406.80575-1-yashi@spacecubics.com> <CAMZ6RqJ2L6YntT23rsYEEUK=YDF2LrhB8hXwvYjciu3vzjx2hQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAELBRWLOKW8NCLpV=MG0_=XY4N3BaozsZCacfgaXEs-tyfzoAA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAELBRWLOKW8NCLpV=MG0_=XY4N3BaozsZCacfgaXEs-tyfzoAA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Vincent Mailhol <vincent.mailhol@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 24 Nov 2022 18:54:25 +0900
Message-ID: <CAMZ6Rq+-ya9VxSGUD4aP=N58gZ1CmDbFFGQ9Oys0aTKm1rWN0A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: mcba_usb: Fix termination command argument
To:     Yasushi SHOJI <yasushi.shoji@gmail.com>
Cc:     Yasushi SHOJI <yashi@spacecubics.com>,
        Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@grandegger.com>,
        Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, linux-can@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu. 24 Nov. 2022 at 18:52, Yasushi SHOJI <yasushi.shoji@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 9:53 AM Vincent Mailhol
> <vincent.mailhol@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/can/usb/mcba_usb.c b/drivers/net/can/usb/mcba_usb.c
> > > index 218b098b261d..67beff1a3876 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/can/usb/mcba_usb.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/can/usb/mcba_usb.c
> > > @@ -785,9 +785,9 @@ static int mcba_set_termination(struct net_device *netdev, u16 term)
> > >         };
> > >
> > >         if (term == MCBA_TERMINATION_ENABLED)
> > > -               usb_msg.termination = 1;
> > > -       else
> > >                 usb_msg.termination = 0;
> > > +       else
> > > +               usb_msg.termination = 1;
> > >
> > >         mcba_usb_xmit_cmd(priv, (struct mcba_usb_msg *)&usb_msg);
> >
> > Nitpick: does it make sense to rename the field to something like
> > usb_msg.termination_disable or usb_msg.termination_off? This would
> > make it more explicit that this is a "reverse" boolean.
>
> I'd rather define the values like
>
> #define TERMINATION_ON (0)
> #define TERMINATION_OFF (1)
>
> So the block becomes
>
> if (term == MCBA_TERMINATION_ENABLED)
>     usb_msg.termination = TERMINATION_ON;
> else
>     usb_msg.termination = TERMINATION_OFF;

That also works! Thank you.