| Message ID | 1476851911-21729-1-git-send-email-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, 2016-12-21 at 01:20 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > Hi. > > I have not got any comment, but does this seem > a right thing to do? > This code is working, but it should not depend on how "bool" is > typedef'ed, or the bit position of I2C_M_RD. <shrug> I think bool can be guaranteed to be _Bool. So a change not necessary as the original code has a c90 guarantee of the same result. 6.3.1.2 Boolean type 1 When any scalar value is converted to _Bool, the result is 0 if the value compares equal to 0; otherwise, the result is 1. > 2016-10-19 13:38 GMT+09:00 Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>: [] > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-uniphier-f.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-uniphier-f.c [] > > @@ -309,7 +309,7 @@ static int uniphier_fi2c_master_xfer_one(struct i2c_adapter *adap, > > struct i2c_msg *msg, bool stop) > > { > > struct uniphier_fi2c_priv *priv = i2c_get_adapdata(adap); > > - bool is_read = msg->flags & I2C_M_RD; > > + bool is_read = !!(msg->flags & I2C_M_RD); > > unsigned long time_left; > > > > dev_dbg(&adap->dev, "%s: addr=0x%02x, len=%d, stop=%d\n", -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Joe, 2016-12-21 2:55 GMT+09:00 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>: > On Wed, 2016-12-21 at 01:20 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >> Hi. >> >> I have not got any comment, but does this seem >> a right thing to do? > >> This code is working, but it should not depend on how "bool" is >> typedef'ed, or the bit position of I2C_M_RD. > > <shrug> > > I think bool can be guaranteed to be _Bool. > > So a change not necessary as the original code > has a c90 guarantee of the same result. > > 6.3.1.2 Boolean type > 1 > When any scalar value is converted to _Bool, the result is 0 if the value compares equal > to 0; otherwise, the result is 1. > Thanks for your comments! _Bool works very nicely. I have seen some (not very nice) projects that define like "typedef char bool;" So, I was wondering if I should write code that works regardless how bool is defined. Just my two cents. -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" 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/i2c/busses/i2c-uniphier-f.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-uniphier-f.c index db9105e..b54448e 100644 --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-uniphier-f.c +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-uniphier-f.c @@ -309,7 +309,7 @@ static int uniphier_fi2c_master_xfer_one(struct i2c_adapter *adap, struct i2c_msg *msg, bool stop) { struct uniphier_fi2c_priv *priv = i2c_get_adapdata(adap); - bool is_read = msg->flags & I2C_M_RD; + bool is_read = !!(msg->flags & I2C_M_RD); unsigned long time_left; dev_dbg(&adap->dev, "%s: addr=0x%02x, len=%d, stop=%d\n", diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-uniphier.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-uniphier.c index 56e92af..cc80bb2 100644 --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-uniphier.c +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-uniphier.c @@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ static int uniphier_i2c_stop(struct i2c_adapter *adap) static int uniphier_i2c_master_xfer_one(struct i2c_adapter *adap, struct i2c_msg *msg, bool stop) { - bool is_read = msg->flags & I2C_M_RD; + bool is_read = !!(msg->flags & I2C_M_RD); bool recovery = false; int ret;
This code is working, but it should not depend on how "bool" is typedef'ed, or the bit position of I2C_M_RD. Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> --- drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-uniphier-f.c | 2 +- drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-uniphier.c | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) -- 1.9.1 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html