[PATCH v2 1/2] regulator: add support for regulators on the ab8500 MFD
broonie at opensource.wolfsonmicro.com
Wed Oct 27 13:56:21 EDT 2010
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 03:42:53PM -0200, Thiago Farina wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Mark Brown
> > There is no reason to do this, logical values are treated as 0 and 1 in
> > C. Using false and true is clear and won't cause any difference in
> > code.
> In C99 I suppose that is true and legal?
Yes. C has always used 1 and 0 as the numerical mappings for logical
values, the addition of the keywords did not change them.
> >> Maybe like this?
> >> return (ret & info->mask) ? 1: 0;
> > No, that's needlessly obfuscated.
> Obfuscated? What you mean? It is a driver, and people reading and
> writing a driver would know what it means, no?
Adding the ternery operator just makes the code more noisy for no
> Would be much simpler if it was just (like done in ab3100.c):
> return (ret & info->mask);
Yes, though there's no problem with the current code either.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel