On 31.08.2015 06:44, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
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]>
Ping, could this be applied, then?
Best regards
Dirk
--
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
