The way state->enabled is computed is rather convoluted and hard to
read - both branches of the if() actually do the exact same thing. So
remove the if(), and further simplify "<boolean condition> ? true :
false" to "<boolean condition>".
Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
I stumbled on this while trying to understand how the pwm subsystem
works. This patch is a semantic no-op, but it's also possible that,
say, the first branch simply contains a "double negative" so either
the != should be == or the "false : true" should be "true : false".
drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c | 7 +------
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
index 51b96cb7dd25..54c6399e3f00 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
@@ -83,12 +83,7 @@ static void rockchip_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip,
state->duty_cycle = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(tmp, clk_rate);
val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
- if (pc->data->supports_polarity)
- state->enabled = ((val & enable_conf) != enable_conf) ?
- false : true;
- else
- state->enabled = ((val & enable_conf) == enable_conf) ?
- true : false;
+ state->enabled = ((val & enable_conf) == enable_conf);
if (pc->data->supports_polarity) {
if (!(val & PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE))
--
2.20.1
_______________________________________________
Linux-rockchip mailing list
Linux-rockchip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
