Re: [PATCH v1 06/16] rtc: mediatek: remove unnecessary parentheses

[Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>]

On Sat, 2018-03-24 at 19:53 +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 24/03/2018 at 15:14:12 +0800, Sean Wang wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-03-23 at 11:21 +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > > On 23/03/2018 at 17:15:03 +0800, sean.wang@mediatek.com wrote:
> > > > From: Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Remove unnecessary parentheses due to explicit C operator precedence.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c | 2 +-
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c
> > > > index 0df7ccd..4411c08 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c
> > > > @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ static irqreturn_t mtk_rtc_irq_handler_thread(int irq, void *data)
> > > >  	int ret;
> > > >  
> > > >  	ret = regmap_read(rtc->regmap, rtc->addr_base + RTC_IRQ_STA, &irqsta);
> > > > -	if ((ret >= 0) && (irqsta & RTC_IRQ_STA_AL)) {
> > > > +	if (ret >= 0 && irqsta & RTC_IRQ_STA_AL) {
> > > 
> > > I don't think this makes the code particularly clearer.
> > > 
> > 
> > But it is still a one of check items in checkpatch
> > 
> > CHECK:UNNECESSARY_PARENTHESES: Unnecessary parentheses around 'ret >= 0'
> > #126: FILE: drivers/rtc/rtc-xxx.c:109:
> > +       if ((ret >= 0) && (irqsta & RTC_IRQ_STA_AL)) {
> > 
> > 
> > or we still want to keep it in parentheses around here?
> > 
> 
> Yeah, this is a matter of taste, I would keep the parentheses.

okay, lets keep the parentheses

> 
>