Instead of repeating first argument for true branch, use short form of the ternary operator, i.e. ?:. While at it, fix a typo in the comment. Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 7 +++---- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c index e3702bc1b533..daedf8207173 100644 --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c @@ -3931,19 +3931,18 @@ struct gpio_desc *__must_check gpiod_get_index(struct device *dev, * If a connection label was passed use that, else attempt to use * the device name as label */ - ret = gpiod_request(desc, con_id ? con_id : devname); + ret = gpiod_request(desc, con_id ?: devname); if (ret) { if (ret == -EBUSY && flags & GPIOD_FLAGS_BIT_NONEXCLUSIVE) { /* * This happens when there are several consumers for * the same GPIO line: we just return here without - * further initialization. It is a bit if a hack. + * further initialization. It is a bit of a hack. * This is necessary to support fixed regulators. * * FIXME: Make this more sane and safe. */ - dev_info(dev, "nonexclusive access to GPIO for %s\n", - con_id ? con_id : devname); + dev_info(dev, "nonexclusive access to GPIO for %s\n", con_id ?: devname); return desc; } else { return ERR_PTR(ret); -- 2.34.1