Re: [PATCH v18 1/2] fpga: lattice-sysconfig-spi: add Lattice sysCONFIG FPGA manager

From: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@intel.com>
To: Ivan Bornyakov <i.bornyakov@metrotek.ru>
Cc: mdf@kernel.org, hao.wu@intel.com, trix@redhat.com, dg@emlix.com,
	j.zink@pengutronix.de, robh+dt@kernel.org,
	krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	kernel@pengutronix.de, system@metrotek.ru
Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 1/2] fpga: lattice-sysconfig-spi: add Lattice sysCONFIG FPGA manager
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 12:54:14 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y0+C9tTIXkAcKXBS@yilunxu-OptiPlex-7050> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221014202750.20542-2-i.bornyakov@metrotek.ru>

On 2022-10-14 at 23:27:49 +0300, Ivan Bornyakov wrote:
> Add support to the FPGA manager for programming Lattice ECP5 FPGA over
> slave SPI sysCONFIG interface.
> 
> sysCONFIG interface core functionality is separate from both ECP5 and
> SPI specifics, so support for other FPGAs with different port types can
> be added in the future.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ivan Bornyakov <i.bornyakov@metrotek.ru>
> ---

[...]

> +static int sysconfig_poll_gpio(struct gpio_desc *gpio, bool is_active)
> +{
> +	int ret, val;
> +
> +	ret = read_poll_timeout(gpiod_get_value, val, val < 0 ||
> +				(val && is_active) || (!val && !is_active),

val < 0 || (!!val == is_active)

is it better?

> +				SYSCONFIG_POLL_INTERVAL_US,
> +				SYSCONFIG_POLL_GPIO_TIMEOUT_US, false, gpio);
> +
> +	return val < 0 ? val : ret;

Try not to use ternery operator here.

  if (ret)
	return ret;
  else if (val < 0)
	return val;

  return 0;

Is it OK?

Thanks,
Yilun