| Message ID | 1439913752-26634-1-git-send-email-dirk.behme@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
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 <dirk.behme@gmail.com> > --- > 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? Best regards Dirk -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@gmail.com> 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 <dirk.behme@gmail.com> >> --- >> 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 <acourbot@nvidia.com> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 31.08.2015 06:44, Alexandre Courbot wrote: > On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@gmail.com> 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 <dirk.behme@gmail.com> >>> --- >>> 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 <acourbot@nvidia.com> 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@gmail.com> 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 <dirk.behme@gmail.com> Patch applied with Alexandre's ACK. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
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];
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 <dirk.behme@gmail.com> --- drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 4 +--- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)