From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756962AbcIGOAJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Sep 2016 10:00:09 -0400 Received: from mga07.intel.com ([134.134.136.100]:17502 "EHLO mga07.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752900AbcIGOAG (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Sep 2016 10:00:06 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,296,1470726000"; d="scan'208";a="1026316572" Message-ID: <1473256801.11323.73.camel@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] gpio: pca953x: coding style fixes From: Andy Shevchenko To: Bartosz Golaszewski , Linus Walleij , Alexandre Courbot , Vignesh R , Yong Li , Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: linux-gpio , LKML Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2016 17:00:01 +0300 In-Reply-To: <1473255472-16090-6-git-send-email-bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> References: <1473255472-16090-1-git-send-email-bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> <1473255472-16090-6-git-send-email-bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2016-09-07 at 15:37 +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > pca953x_gpio_set_multiple() has some coding style issues that make it > harder to read. Tweak the code a bit. > > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski > --- >  drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c | 19 ++++++++++--------- >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c > index b08ed52..bbec5d7 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c > @@ -360,25 +360,26 @@ exit: >  } >   >  static void pca953x_gpio_set_multiple(struct gpio_chip *gc, > - unsigned long *mask, unsigned long *bits) > +       unsigned long *mask, unsigned > long *bits) >  { >   struct pca953x_chip *chip = gpiochip_get_data(gc); >   u8 reg_val[MAX_BANK]; > - int ret; > + int ret, bank; >   int bank_shift = fls((chip->gpio_chip.ngpio - 1) / BANK_SZ); > - int bank; > + unsigned int bankmask, bankval; I doubt it's the best representation. Can we use reversed xmas tree? Also, I would not unify ret and bank on the same line. >   >   memcpy(reg_val, chip->reg_output, NBANK(chip)); >   mutex_lock(&chip->i2c_lock); > - for(bank=0; bank - unsigned bankmask = mask[bank / sizeof(*mask)] >> > -     ((bank % sizeof(*mask)) * 8); > - if(bankmask) { > - unsigned bankval  = bits[bank / > sizeof(*bits)] >> > -     ((bank % sizeof(*bits)) * > 8); > + for (bank = 0; bank < NBANK(chip); bank++) { > + bankmask = mask[bank / sizeof(*mask)] >> > +    ((bank % sizeof(*mask)) * 8); > + if (bankmask) { > + bankval = bits[bank / sizeof(*bits)] >> > +   ((bank % sizeof(*bits)) * 8); >   reg_val[bank] = (reg_val[bank] & ~bankmask) | > bankval; >   } >   } > + >   ret = i2c_smbus_write_i2c_block_data(chip->client, >        chip->offset->output << > bank_shift, >        NBANK(chip), reg_val); -- Andy Shevchenko Intel Finland Oy