On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 11:57:20AM +0000, Sakari Ailus wrote: > On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 01:22:19PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 09:37:06AM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote: ... > > > + if (*type != int3472_gpio_map[i].type_from || > > > + !acpi_dev_hid_uid_match(adev, int3472_gpio_map[i].hid, NULL)) > > > + continue; > > > > I think in a split form it is easier to read and maintain: > > > > if (!acpi_dev_hid_uid_match(adev, int3472_gpio_map[i].hid, NULL)) > > continue; > > > > if (*type != int3472_gpio_map[i].type_from) > > continue; > > Works for me, with the order reverted. I'll send v5. Hmm... I don't think the provided order is understandable. But let's continue discussion in v5 thread. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
