On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 11:10 -0700, David Daney wrote:
> Sorry for not responding earlier, but my e-mail system seems to have
> malfunctioned with respect to this message...
[]
> On 06/17/2013 01:51 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> >> +static int octeon_gpio_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset)
> >> +{
> >> + struct octeon_gpio *gpio = container_of(chip, struct octeon_gpio, chip);
> >> + u64 read_bits = cvmx_read_csr(gpio->register_base + RX_DAT);
> >> +
> >> + return ((1ull << offset) & read_bits) != 0;
> >
> > A common idiom we use for this is:
> >
> > return !!(read_bits & (1ull << offset));
>
> I hate that idiom, but if its use is a condition of accepting the patch,
> I will change it.
Or use an even more common idiom and change the
function to return bool and let the compiler do it.
