On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Dirk Behme <[email protected]> wrote: > On 18.08.2015 18:02, Dirk Behme wrote: >> >> The parameter offset is an unsigned, so it makes no sense to compare >> it for >= 0. Fix the compiler warning regarding this by removing this >> comparison. >> >> As the macro GPIO_OFFSET_VALID is only used at this single place, simplify >> the code by dropping the macro completely and dropping the invert, too. >> >> No functional change. >> >> Signed-off-by: Dirk Behme <[email protected]> >> --- >> drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 4 +--- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c >> index bf4bd1d..9841b05 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c >> @@ -47,8 +47,6 @@ >> */ >> DEFINE_SPINLOCK(gpio_lock); >> >> -#define GPIO_OFFSET_VALID(chip, offset) (offset >= 0 && offset < >> chip->ngpio) >> - >> static DEFINE_MUTEX(gpio_lookup_lock); >> static LIST_HEAD(gpio_lookup_list); >> LIST_HEAD(gpio_chips); >> @@ -914,7 +912,7 @@ const char *gpiochip_is_requested(struct gpio_chip >> *chip, unsigned offset) >> { >> struct gpio_desc *desc; >> >> - if (!GPIO_OFFSET_VALID(chip, offset)) >> + if (offset >= chip->ngpio) >> return NULL; >> >> desc = &chip->desc[offset]; > > > > What do you think about this? Could this be applied?
Looks good to me. Acked-by: Alexandre Courbot <[email protected]> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
