Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: don't compare an unsigned for >= 0

[Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@gmail.com>]

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