On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 06:35:46PM GMT, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 09:29:38AM +0200, Andi Shyti kirjoitti:
>
> ...
>
> > > - sch_io_wr8(priv, SMBHSTSTS, temp);
> > > + sch_io_wr8(priv, SMBHSTSTS, temp & 0x0f);
> >
> > there is still a dev_dbg() using temp. To be on the safe side, do
> > we want to do a "temp &= 0x0f" after the read_poll_timeout?
>
> Isn't it even better that we have more information in the debug output?
I think not, because:
1. It's information that we don't need, and we intentionally
discard in every check. If we print a value we ignore, we
risk providing incorrect information.
2. It’s more future-proof. In future development, cleanups,
refactorings, or copy-paste, temp can be used as is
without needing to continuously & it with 0xf. This
avoids unnecessary operations being repeated later on.
3. It maintains the original design.
In any case, these are small details, and the patch is already
good as it is.
Thanks,
Andi
