On 03/28/2016 10:35 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On 27/03/16 08:42, zhaoxiu.zeng wrote: >> From: Zeng Zhaoxiu <zhaoxiu.zeng@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> Signed-off-by: Zeng Zhaoxiu <zhaoxiu.zeng@xxxxxxxxx> > Interesting. Whilst obviously correct I wonder if this obscures the > intent of the code a little. Lars, what do you think? The parity function is newly introduced in this series and can be more efficient that just hw_weight() & 1 on certain architectures. Since the result is the same using it is certainly an improvement. But ... [...] >> - if (!(hweight32(tx) & 1)) >> - tx |= ADXRS450_P; >> + tx |= !parity32(tx) * ADXRS450_P; ... this should still be if (!parity32(tx)) tx |= ADXRS450_P; Otherwise it's a bit too much obfuscated for my taste. Just leave it to the compiler to optimize it as it sees it fit. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
