On 24/03/2018 at 15:14:12 +0800, Sean Wang wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-03-23 at 11:21 +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > On 23/03/2018 at 17:15:03 +0800, sean.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > From: Sean Wang <sean.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Remove unnecessary parentheses due to explicit C operator precedence.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Sean Wang <sean.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c
> > > index 0df7ccd..4411c08 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c
> > > @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ static irqreturn_t mtk_rtc_irq_handler_thread(int irq, void *data)
> > > int ret;
> > >
> > > ret = regmap_read(rtc->regmap, rtc->addr_base + RTC_IRQ_STA, &irqsta);
> > > - if ((ret >= 0) && (irqsta & RTC_IRQ_STA_AL)) {
> > > + if (ret >= 0 && irqsta & RTC_IRQ_STA_AL) {
> >
> > I don't think this makes the code particularly clearer.
> >
>
> But it is still a one of check items in checkpatch
>
> CHECK:UNNECESSARY_PARENTHESES: Unnecessary parentheses around 'ret >= 0'
> #126: FILE: drivers/rtc/rtc-xxx.c:109:
> + if ((ret >= 0) && (irqsta & RTC_IRQ_STA_AL)) {
>
>
> or we still want to keep it in parentheses around here?
>
Yeah, this is a matter of taste, I would keep the parentheses.
--
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
