On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:17:27AM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> 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".
The change looks obviously right, it's a noop.
I share your doubts however. The construct was introduced in commit
831b2790507b ("pwm: rockchip: Use same PWM ops for each IP") by David
Wu.
Before there were rockchip_pwm_get_state_v1 for the supports_polarity =
false case and rockchip_pwm_get_state_v2 for supports_polarity = true.
In both state->enabled was assigned true if ((val & enable_conf) ==
enable_conf). So I assume everything is fine.
A confirmation by David would be great though.
As a side note: Is there publicly available documentation for this IP?
If a link were added to the driver's header we could check easily
ourselves.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
_______________________________________________
Linux-rockchip mailing list
Linux-rockchip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
