On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 06:57:54PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > 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? Yes, I think that could be a winning combination. -- 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