On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 06:18:46PM +0200, Antoni Przybylik wrote:
> This approach is more elegant and prevents some problems related to
> macros such as operator precedence in expanded expression.
>
> Signed-off-by: Antoni Przybylik <antoni.przybylik@xxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_tty.c | 15 +++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_tty.c b/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_tty.c
> index 6e813693a766..a7db0672e81d 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_tty.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/gdm724x/gdm_tty.c
> @@ -27,8 +27,6 @@
>
> #define MUX_TX_MAX_SIZE 2048
>
> -#define GDM_TTY_READY(gdm) (gdm && gdm->tty_dev && gdm->port.count)
> -
> static struct tty_driver *gdm_driver[TTY_MAX_COUNT];
> static struct gdm *gdm_table[TTY_MAX_COUNT][GDM_TTY_MINOR];
> static DEFINE_MUTEX(gdm_table_lock);
> @@ -36,6 +34,11 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(gdm_table_lock);
> static const char *DRIVER_STRING[TTY_MAX_COUNT] = {"GCTATC", "GCTDM"};
> static char *DEVICE_STRING[TTY_MAX_COUNT] = {"GCT-ATC", "GCT-DM"};
>
> +static int gdm_tty_ready(gdm *gdm)
> +{
> + return (gdm && gdm->tty_dev && gdm->port.count);
> +}
You obviously did not even build this patch, which is a bit rude, don't
you think?
:(
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
