On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 12:42:33PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 3:48 PM Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 01:53:25PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 6:37 PM Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 05:15:33PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > The negative conditionals are harder to parse by reader. > > > > > Switch to positive one in dwapb_configure_irqs(). > > > > > > > > Sorry as for me this modification is redundant. Yes, I know that if-else > > > > statement in some cases better to start with positive expression to make it > > > > a bit more clear, but in this case I'd leave it as is. First this rule is > > > > applicable if both branches are more or less equal, but here I see the most > > > > normal case of using the dt-based generic device, which doesn't declare the > > > > IRQs as shared seeing it is selected by far more devices at the moment. > > > > Second the non-shared IRQs case also covers a combined and multiple-lined > > > > GPIO IRQs (chained cascaded GPIO irqchip), while the irq_shared clause have > > > > only a single IRQ source supported. Finally If the code was like you > > > > suggested from the very beginning I wouldn't say a word, but this patch seems > > > > to me at least just moving the code around with gaining less than we have at > > > > the moment. > > > > > > > > Linus, Bartosz and other GPIO-ers may think differently though. Lets see their > > > > opinion. > > > > > > I think I already applied all patches with the batch application tool b4, > > > without properly checking which patches you reviewed and not, sorry :( > > > > > > However if any change is controversial I can revert or pull the patch out. > > > > In this case it's up to you to decide. > > I backed out the last two patches now and kept the rest except 13 and 14. Ok. Thanks. Regards, -Sergey > > Yours, > Linus Walleij