On 2017-05-18 12:11, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> wrote: >> On 2017-05-13 15:36, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> wrote: >>>> First, the logic for translating a register bit to the return code of >>>> exar_get_direction and exar_get_value were wrong. And second, there was >>>> a flip regarding the register bank in exar_get_direction. >>> >>> Again, I wish it was tested in the first place. >>> >>> After addressing below: >>> FWIW: >>> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevche...@gmail.com> >>> >>>> @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ static int exar_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int >>>> reg) >>>> value = readb(exar_gpio->regs + reg); >>>> mutex_unlock(&exar_gpio->lock); >>>> >>>> - return !!value; >>>> + return value; >>> >>> This one is correct. > >>> >>>> @@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ static int exar_get_direction(struct gpio_chip *chip, >>>> unsigned int offset) >>>> addr = bank ? EXAR_OFFSET_MPIOSEL_HI : EXAR_OFFSET_MPIOSEL_LO; >>>> val = exar_get(chip, addr) >> (offset % 8); >>>> >>>> - return !!val; >>>> + return val & 1; >>> >>> It should be rather >>> >>> val = exar_get(chip, addr) & BIT(offset % 8); >> >> That won't give us 0 or 1 as return value, thus would be incorrect. > > Full picture: > > val = exar_get(chip, addr) & BIT(offset % 8); > > return !!val; > > How it could be non-(1 or 0)? >
Right - but what is the point of that other style? Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA ITP SES-DE Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
