On 10/20/2017 05:54 PM, Gregory Fong wrote: > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Doug Berger <opendmb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> +static int brcmstb_gpio_resume(struct device *dev) >>>> +{ >>>> + struct brcmstb_gpio_priv *priv = dev_get_drvdata(dev); >>>> + struct brcmstb_gpio_bank *bank; >>>> + u32 wake_mask = 0; >>> >>> This isn't really being used as a mask, contrary to appearances. It's >>> just tracking whether any active IRQs were seen. Please change to use a >>> bool instead and adjust the name accordingly. >>> >> >> I see your point, but I believe it is cleaner to use this to consolidate >> the bit masks returned by each __brcmstb_gpio_get_active_irqs() call. >> This allows a single test rather than a test per bank. > > What about something like this? > > bool need_wakeup_event = false; > > list_for_each_entry(bank, &priv->bank_list, node) { > need_wakeup_event |= !!__brcmstb_gpio_get_active_irqs(bank); > brcmstb_gpio_bank_restore(priv, bank); > } > > if (priv->parent_wake_irq && need_wakeup_event) > pm_wakeup_event(dev, 0); > It's less efficient, but it is not performance sensitive so if you feel this is more understandable I'll make the change. Thanks, Doug -- 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