> > > > >> + case IIO_CURRENT: > > >> + *val = ad7173_get_ref_voltage_milli(st, ch->cfg.ref_sel); > > >> + *val /= AD4111_SHUNT_RESISTOR_OHM; > > >> + *val2 = chan->scan_type.realbits - !!(ch->cfg.bipolar); > > > > > > Static analysis tools like to complain about using bool as int. > > > Probably more clear to write it as (ch->cfg.bipolar ? 1 : 0) anyway. > > > > > Maybe it does not apply here, but i followed this advice: > > > > Andy Shevchenko V1 of AD7173 (named initially ad717x) > > " > > > + return (bool)(value & mask); > > > > This is weird. You have int which you get from bool, wouldn't be better > > to use > > !!(...) as other GPIO drivers do? > > As long as the build bots don't complain, there isn't a reason to > change it. It is just a matter of personal preference at that point. > > I got a sparse warning for something like this recently [1], but maybe > that case was just because it was inside of a FIELD_PREP() using it as > bit logic instead of addition and we won't get any warnings here. > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/20240129195611.701611-3-dlechner@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ It was common to use !! for a number of years, but then it got a comment from Linus Torvalds making reasonable point that it isn't easy to read, so slight preference these days is for a ternary.
