From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: joe@perches.com (Joe Perches)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 15:37:00 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] drivers: create a pinmux subsystem
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=XSevO72NqCYOYuketjE8XjeQU+A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1304363786-30376-1-git-send-email-linus.walleij@stericsson.com>
	<1304365077.7792.40.camel@Joe-Laptop>
	<BANLkTi=XSevO72NqCYOYuketjE8XjeQU+A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1305067020.19586.130.camel@Joe-Laptop>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 00:18 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> 2011/5/2 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>:
> > On Mon, 2011-05-02 at 21:16 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> >> From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/pinmux/core.c b/drivers/pinmux/core.c
> > Trivial comments follow
> >> +static inline int pin_is_valid(int pin)
> >> +{
> >> +     return ((unsigned)pin) < MACH_NR_PINS;
> >> +}
> > Couldn't pin just be declared unsigned or maybe u32?
> No, because like in the GPIO subsystem you *may* want to send in invalid
> pins, and those are identified by negative numbers.

Then I think this is clearer and the compiler
should produce the same code.

static inline bool pin_is_valid(int pin)
{ 
	return pin >= 0 && pin < MACH_NR_PINS;
}

cheers, Joe