On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 08:30:24AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 1/25/19 3:05 AM, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > +static int bd70528_set_wake(struct bd70528 *bd70528,
> > + int enable, int *old_state)
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > + unsigned int ctrl_reg;
> > +
> > + ret = regmap_read(bd70528->chip.regmap, BD70528_REG_WAKE_EN, &ctrl_reg);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + if (old_state) {
> > + if (ctrl_reg & BD70528_MASK_WAKE_EN)
> > + *old_state |= BD70528_WAKE_STATE_BIT;
> > + else
> > + *old_state &= ~BD70528_WAKE_STATE_BIT;
> > +
> > + if ((!enable) == (!(*old_state & BD70528_WAKE_STATE_BIT)))
> > + return 0;
>
> I think
> if (enable == !!(*old_state & BD70528_WAKE_STATE_BIT))
> would be much better readable. Even if not, there are way too many ()
> in the above conditional.
>
The substitution is not equivalent to original. I think you mean:
if (!!enable == !!(*old_state & BD70528_WAKE_STATE_BIT))
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Hoemann Software Engineer Hewlett Packard Enterprise
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
