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". > > drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c | 7 +------ > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-) I've applied this. Irrespective of any feedback David would have this is correct and a nice simplification. Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Linux-rockchip mailing list Linux-rockchip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
