On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 11:27 -0700, David Daney wrote:
> On 06/20/2013 11:18 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > 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.
> >
>
> ... but it is part of the gpiochip system interface, so it would have to
> be done kernel wide.
Not really. It's a local static function.
> Really I don't like the idea of GPIO lines having Boolean truth values
> associated with them. Some represent things that are active-high and
> others active-low. Converting the pin voltage being above or below a
> given threshold to something other than zero or one would in my opinion
> be confusing.
No worries, just offering options. Your code, your choice.
