[PATCH v3] ARM: pxa: fix GPIO double shifts

[Robert Jarzmik]

Hi Joe,

Joe Perches <joe at perches.com> writes:
> trivially:
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/corgi_pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/corgi_pm.c
> []
>> @@ -131,15 +131,13 @@ static int corgi_should_wakeup(unsigned int resume_on_alarm)
>>  	return is_resume;
>>  }
>>  
>> -static unsigned long corgi_charger_wakeup(void)
>> +static bool corgi_charger_wakeup(void)
>>  {
>> -	unsigned long ret;
>> +	bool ret;
>>  
>> -	ret = (!gpio_get_value(CORGI_GPIO_AC_IN) << GPIO_bit(CORGI_GPIO_AC_IN))
>> -		| (!gpio_get_value(CORGI_GPIO_KEY_INT)
>> -		<< GPIO_bit(CORGI_GPIO_KEY_INT))
>> -		| (!gpio_get_value(CORGI_GPIO_WAKEUP)
>> -		<< GPIO_bit(CORGI_GPIO_WAKEUP));
>> +	ret = !gpio_get_value(CORGI_GPIO_AC_IN)
>> +		|| !gpio_get_value(CORGI_GPIO_KEY_INT)
>> +		|| !gpio_get_value(CORGI_GPIO_WAKEUP);
>
> These might be better without the automatic use of ret
>
> 	return !gpio_get_value(CORGI_GPIO_AC_IN) ||
> 	       !gpio_get_value(CORGI_GPIO_KEY_INT) ||
> 	       !gpio_get_value(CORGI_GPIO_WAKEUP);

Yeah, I thought about this when I made the patch.

I supposed it was written this way so that a printk was easier to add, that's
why I didn't change the useless variable.

I have no strong opinion about this, so if you think it's worth it I can make
the additional change.

Cheers.

--
Robert