Heiko,
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@xxxxxx>
>
> Some gpio implementations return interesting values for gpio_get_value when
> the value is not 0 - as seen on a imx6sl board. Therefore do not use the
> value returned from gpio_get_value directly but simply check for 0 or not 0.
>
> Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@xxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/power/gpio-charger.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/power/gpio-charger.c b/drivers/power/gpio-charger.c
> index 5fe6879..ce99a29 100644
> --- a/drivers/power/gpio-charger.c
> +++ b/drivers/power/gpio-charger.c
> @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ static int gpio_charger_get_property(struct power_supply *psy,
>
> switch (psp) {
> case POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_ONLINE:
> - val->intval = gpio_get_value_cansleep(pdata->gpio);
> + val->intval = gpio_get_value_cansleep(pdata->gpio) ? 1 : 0;
There is a common practice about using "!!" for this. AKA:
"val->intval = !!gpio_get_value_cansleep(pdata->gpio);".
> val->intval ^= pdata->gpio_active_low;
It seems like while you're at it you could also fix
"pdata->gpio_active_low" to have the "!!", just to be safe.
...if you don't fix this, perhaps you should fix your last patch to
add a "!!", like:
pdata->gpio_active_low = !!(flags & OF_GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW);
...technically OF_GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW is 0x1 so it's not a bug, but...
--
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
