Hi Simon, On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > + /* GP6_16-23 -> bits 31-24 of pocctrl >> > + * GP6_06 -> bit 23 of pocctrl >> > + * GP6_00-05 -> bits 22-17 of pocctrl >> > + * GP6_07 -> bit 16 of pocctrl >> > + * GP6_14 -> bit 15 of pocctrl >> > + * GP6_08-13 -> bits 14-09 of pocctrl >> > + * GP6_15 -> bit 08 of pocctrl >> > + */ >> > + if (pin == RCAR_GP_PIN(6, 6) || pin == RCAR_GP_PIN(6, 14)) >> > + return 31 - 2 - (pin & 0x1f); >> > + else if (pin == RCAR_GP_PIN(6, 7) || pin == RCAR_GP_PIN(6, 15)) >> > + return 31 - 8 - (pin & 0x1f); >> > + else if (pin < RCAR_GP_PIN(6, 14)) >> > + return 31 - 9 - (pin & 0x1f); >> > + else >> > + return 31 + 16 - (pin & 0x1f); >> >> While your code is correct, I think it's easier for the casual reader to use >> a plain switch () statement, and let the optimizer handle the rest. > > Like this? If so I don't particularly mind but it doesn't seem clearer to > me. > > +static int r8a7794_pin_to_pocctrl(struct sh_pfc *pfc, unsigned int pin, u32 *pocctrl) > +{ > + *pocctrl = 0xe606006c; > + > + switch (pin) { > + case RCAR_GP_PIN(6, 0): > + return 22; > + case RCAR_GP_PIN(6, 1): > + return 21; Right, a full list of cases indeed doesn't look that much better. Note that you can use "switch (pin & 0x1f)", and have ranges in case statements: switch (pin & 0x1f) { case 6: return 23: case 7: return 16; case 14: return 15; case 15: return 8; case 0...5: case 7...13: return 22 - (pin & 0x1f); case 16..23: return 47 - (pin & 0x1f); } Does that look better? Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds -- 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