On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 15:20:54 +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: >> As we want gpio_chip .get() calls to be able to return negative >> error codes and propagate to drivers, we need to go over all >> drivers and make sure their return values are clamped to [0,1]. >> We do this by using the ret = !!(val) design pattern. >> >> Cc: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Daniel Krueger <daniel.krueger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/gpio/gpio-pch.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pch.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pch.c >> index af0715f8524b..8c45b74dcf21 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pch.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pch.c >> @@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ static int pch_gpio_get(struct gpio_chip *gpio, unsigned nr) >> { >> struct pch_gpio *chip = container_of(gpio, struct pch_gpio, gpio); >> >> - return ioread32(&chip->reg->pi) & (1 << nr); >> + return !!(ioread32(&chip->reg->pi) & (1 << nr)); >> } >> >> static int pch_gpio_direction_output(struct gpio_chip *gpio, unsigned nr, > > I would prefer: > > return (ioread32(&chip->reg->pi) >> nr) & 1; > > which is faster for the same result. > > At x86 assembly level, your approach requires 5 CPU instructions (mov, > shl, test, setne and movzbl), mine only 2 CPU instructions (shr and > and.) I was mainly going over and fixing all drivers with the simplest pattern I can think of, already merged this as it was a regression basically, but a patch based on my GPIO devel branch or Linux-next to fix it the way you want it would be appreciated. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html