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 <[email protected]>
> ---
> 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<NBANK(chip); 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 <[email protected]>
Intel Finland Oy
