On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 01:26:56PM -0700, Jerry Hoemann wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 08:30:24AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 1/25/19 3:05 AM, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > > +static int bd70528_set_wake(struct bd70528 *bd70528,
> > > + int enable, int *old_state)
> > > +{
> > > + int ret;
> > > + unsigned int ctrl_reg;
> > > +
> > > + ret = regmap_read(bd70528->chip.regmap, BD70528_REG_WAKE_EN, &ctrl_reg);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + if (old_state) {
> > > + if (ctrl_reg & BD70528_MASK_WAKE_EN)
> > > + *old_state |= BD70528_WAKE_STATE_BIT;
> > > + else
> > > + *old_state &= ~BD70528_WAKE_STATE_BIT;
> > > +
> > > + if ((!enable) == (!(*old_state & BD70528_WAKE_STATE_BIT)))
> > > + return 0;
> >
> > I think
> > if (enable == !!(*old_state & BD70528_WAKE_STATE_BIT))
> > would be much better readable. Even if not, there are way too many ()
> > in the above conditional.
> >
>
> The substitution is not equivalent to original. I think you mean:
>
> if (!!enable == !!(*old_state & BD70528_WAKE_STATE_BIT))
Thanks Jerry! Good catch! I originally wanted that all non-zero values
of 'enable' would be 'true'. So maybe I just use the original approach
but get rid of extra parenthesis which were pointed out by Guenter.
if (!enable == !(*old_state & BD70528_WAKE_STATE_BIT))
should do it just fine, right?
Br,
Matti
