All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
	Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
Cc: David Wu <david.wu@rock-chips.com>,
	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
	linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] pwm: rockchip: simplify rockchip_pwm_get_state()
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 11:17:27 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190919091728.24756-1-linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> (raw)

The way state->enabled is computed is rather convoluted and hard to
read - both branches of the if() actually do the exact same thing. So
remove the if(), and further simplify "<boolean condition> ? true :
false" to "<boolean condition>".

Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
---
I stumbled on this while trying to understand how the pwm subsystem
works. This patch is a semantic no-op, but it's also possible that,
say, the first branch simply contains a "double negative" so either
the != should be == or the "false : true" should be "true : false".

 drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c | 7 +------
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
index 51b96cb7dd25..54c6399e3f00 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
@@ -83,12 +83,7 @@ static void rockchip_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip,
 	state->duty_cycle =  DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(tmp, clk_rate);
 
 	val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
-	if (pc->data->supports_polarity)
-		state->enabled = ((val & enable_conf) != enable_conf) ?
-				 false : true;
-	else
-		state->enabled = ((val & enable_conf) == enable_conf) ?
-				 true : false;
+	state->enabled = ((val & enable_conf) == enable_conf);
 
 	if (pc->data->supports_polarity) {
 		if (!(val & PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE))
-- 
2.20.1


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
	Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
Cc: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org,
	David Wu <david.wu@rock-chips.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] pwm: rockchip: simplify rockchip_pwm_get_state()
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 11:17:27 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190919091728.24756-1-linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> (raw)

The way state->enabled is computed is rather convoluted and hard to
read - both branches of the if() actually do the exact same thing. So
remove the if(), and further simplify "<boolean condition> ? true :
false" to "<boolean condition>".

Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
---
I stumbled on this while trying to understand how the pwm subsystem
works. This patch is a semantic no-op, but it's also possible that,
say, the first branch simply contains a "double negative" so either
the != should be == or the "false : true" should be "true : false".

 drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c | 7 +------
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
index 51b96cb7dd25..54c6399e3f00 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
@@ -83,12 +83,7 @@ static void rockchip_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip,
 	state->duty_cycle =  DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(tmp, clk_rate);
 
 	val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
-	if (pc->data->supports_polarity)
-		state->enabled = ((val & enable_conf) != enable_conf) ?
-				 false : true;
-	else
-		state->enabled = ((val & enable_conf) == enable_conf) ?
-				 true : false;
+	state->enabled = ((val & enable_conf) == enable_conf);
 
 	if (pc->data->supports_polarity) {
 		if (!(val & PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE))
-- 
2.20.1

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
	Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
Cc: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org,
	David Wu <david.wu@rock-chips.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] pwm: rockchip: simplify rockchip_pwm_get_state()
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 11:17:27 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190919091728.24756-1-linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> (raw)

The way state->enabled is computed is rather convoluted and hard to
read - both branches of the if() actually do the exact same thing. So
remove the if(), and further simplify "<boolean condition> ? true :
false" to "<boolean condition>".

Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
---
I stumbled on this while trying to understand how the pwm subsystem
works. This patch is a semantic no-op, but it's also possible that,
say, the first branch simply contains a "double negative" so either
the != should be == or the "false : true" should be "true : false".

 drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c | 7 +------
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
index 51b96cb7dd25..54c6399e3f00 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c
@@ -83,12 +83,7 @@ static void rockchip_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip,
 	state->duty_cycle =  DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(tmp, clk_rate);
 
 	val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
-	if (pc->data->supports_polarity)
-		state->enabled = ((val & enable_conf) != enable_conf) ?
-				 false : true;
-	else
-		state->enabled = ((val & enable_conf) == enable_conf) ?
-				 true : false;
+	state->enabled = ((val & enable_conf) == enable_conf);
 
 	if (pc->data->supports_polarity) {
 		if (!(val & PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE))
-- 
2.20.1


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

             reply	other threads:[~2019-09-19  9:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-09-19  9:17 Rasmus Villemoes [this message]
2019-09-19  9:17 ` [PATCH] pwm: rockchip: simplify rockchip_pwm_get_state() Rasmus Villemoes
2019-09-19  9:17 ` Rasmus Villemoes
2019-09-19 11:11 ` oUwe Kleine-König
2019-09-19 11:11   ` oUwe Kleine-König
2020-05-23 20:01   ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-05-23 20:01     ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-05-23 20:01     ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-06-02 12:39 ` Thierry Reding
2020-06-02 12:39   ` Thierry Reding
2020-06-03  3:10   ` David Wu
2020-06-03  3:10     ` David Wu

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20190919091728.24756-1-linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk \
    --to=linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk \
    --cc=david.wu@rock-chips.com \
    --cc=heiko@sntech.de \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.