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: <202212181140.EAWl7FKx-lkp@intel.com> <3D147284-AF8C-4414-9BE1-C83032B6C15D@gmail.com>
 <Y6dTX2wx/SXlswGC@kadam> <F701A496-22A6-4E3B-B3CB-E5BCF4C30502@gmail.com>
 <C430F7E6-723B-4EA8-BA87-00C84676BD4F@gmail.com> <Y6svZX++B5TYRHBT@kadam>
In-Reply-To: <Y6svZX++B5TYRHBT@kadam>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Dec 2022 20:30:33 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vem0ypV9+3JUrt_mBJU_TQ5yrp-ubk_NV2-ejTZ8Ac4Dg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: drivers/gpio/gpio-exar.c:52 exar_offset_to_sel_addr() warn:
 replace divide condition 'pin / 8' with 'pin >= 8'
To:     Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>
Cc:     oe-kbuild@lists.linux.dev, Qingtao Cao <qingtao.cao.au@gmail.com>,
        lkp@intel.com, oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 7:46 PM Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 25, 2022 at 12:50:46PM +0100, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> kirjoitti 25.12.2022 kell=
o 12.45:
> > >>> Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com> kirjoitti 24.12.2022 kello 20.30:
> > >>> On Sat, Dec 24, 2022 at 05:19:27PM +0100, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > >>>> Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com> kirjoitti 23.12.2022 kello 11.54=
:

...

> > >>>> smatch warnings:
> > >>>> drivers/gpio/gpio-exar.c:52 exar_offset_to_sel_addr() warn: replac=
e divide condition 'pin / 8' with 'pin >=3D 8'
> > >>>> drivers/gpio/gpio-exar.c:62 exar_offset_to_lvl_addr() warn: replac=
e divide condition 'pin / 8' with 'pin >=3D 8'
> > >>>
> > >>> I don=E2=80=99t think this is a good advice. If we want to limit th=
at, we need
> > >>> to check also upper limit. But. The GPIO framework does that. So,
> > >>> changing / to >=3D is bogus.
> > >>
> > >> How is checking pin / 8 not mathematically equivalent to pin >=3D 8?
> > >
> > > The point is that semantically the / is better in case this code will=
 ever support more than two banks of pins.
> >
> > On top of that it=E2=80=99s paired with pin % 8.
>
> I noticed that, but it's a common bug though that a lot of people
> accidentally write if (pin / 8) when if ((pin % 8) =3D=3D 0) is intended.

Probably. Here the pin/8 is the correct approach, it shows the bank
number, where each bank is out of 8 pins.

> For example:

Thanks, but it's unrelated to this case.

--=20
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko