On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 01:41:38PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> On 3/18/24 12:58 PM, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > …
> > > +++ b/drivers/misc/mikrobus/mikrobus_core.c
> > …
> > > +static int mikrobus_pinctrl_setup(struct mikrobus_port *port,
> > > + struct addon_board_info *board)
> > > +{
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + if (!board || board->pin_state[MIKROBUS_PIN_PWM] == MIKROBUS_STATE_PWM)
> > > + ret = mikrobus_pinctrl_select(port, "pwm_default");
> > > + else
> > > + ret = mikrobus_pinctrl_select(port, "pwm_gpio");
> > …
> >
> > How do you think about to avoid the specification of a bit of duplicate source code here
> > by using conditional operator expressions?
> >
> > ret = mikrobus_pinctrl_select(port,
> > ((!board ||
> > board->pin_state[MIKROBUS_PIN_PWM] == MIKROBUS_STATE_PWM)
> > ? "pwm_default"
> > : "pwm_gpio"));
>
> No.
>
> It's a complex enough bit of logic without trying to bury
> it inside the parameters passed to the function.
Hi,
This is the semi-friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.
Markus, you seem to have sent a nonsensical or otherwise pointless
review comment to a patch submission on a Linux kernel developer mailing
list. I strongly suggest that you not do this anymore. Please do not
bother developers who are actively working to produce patches and
features with comments that, in the end, are a waste of time.
Patch submitter, please ignore Markus's suggestion; you do not need to
follow it at all. The person/bot/AI that sent it is being ignored by
almost all Linux kernel maintainers for having a persistent pattern of
behavior of producing distracting and pointless commentary, and
inability to adapt to feedback. Please feel free to also ignore emails
from them.
thanks,
greg k-h's patch email bot
