Hi Paulius, Thanks for the review. On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:31:22 +0300, Paulius Zaleckas wrote: > Jean Delvare wrote: > > --- linux-2.6.26-rc0.orig/drivers/hwmon/adt7473.c 2008-04-26 15:36:41.000000000 +0200 > > +++ linux-2.6.26-rc0/drivers/hwmon/adt7473.c 2008-04-26 16:15:05.000000000 +0200 > > @@ -298,6 +298,9 @@ no_sensor_update: > > ADT7473_REG_PWM_BHVR(i)); > > } > > > > + i = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(client, ADT7473_REG_CFG4); > > + data->max_duty_at_overheat = !!(i & ADT7473_CFG4_MAX_DUTY_AT_OVT); > > Maybe it would be more understandable to use: > data->max_duty_at_overheat = (i & ADT7473_CFG4_MAX_DUTY_AT_OVT) ? 1 : 0; The !! construct seems to be widely used in the kernel, I found 800 occurrences, so I guess it's OK to use it here. But if Darrick (as the driver author) or Mark (as the subsystem maintainer) prefer your variant, I can update the patch. > Although I don't know if gcc optimizes both to the same instructions. It seems so, yes (gcc 4.1.2). > > > + > > data->limits_last_updated = local_jiffies; > > data->limits_valid = 1; -- Jean Delvare
