On 17/08/23 18:02, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 8/14/23 04:26, Adrian Hunter wrote: >> And perhaps the following is neater: >> >> u32 val; >> >> return !read_poll_timeout(ufshcd_readl, val, val & UIC_COMMAND_READY, >> 500, UIC_CMD_TIMEOUT * 1000, false, hba, >> REG_CONTROLLER_STATUS); > > Would the above make readers of that code wonder whether read_poll_timeout() > perhaps returns a boolean? Wouldn't it be better to test the > read_poll_timeout() return value as follows? > > return read_poll_timeout(ufshcd_readl, val, val & UIC_COMMAND_READY, > 500, UIC_CMD_TIMEOUT * 1000, false, hba, > REG_CONTROLLER_STATUS) == 0; > Either is fine, otherwise: Reviewed-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx>
