From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexandre Belloni Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 06/16] rtc: mediatek: remove unnecessary parentheses Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 19:53:30 +0100 Message-ID: <20180324185330.GO3417@piout.net> References: <92d07e90f43899981a82fbc684c3d15aaecaf591.1521794177.git.sean.wang@mediatek.com> <20180323102123.GG3417@piout.net> <1521875652.28226.29.camel@mtkswgap22> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1521875652.28226.29.camel@mtkswgap22> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Sean Wang Cc: robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, sre@kernel.org, lee.jones@linaro.org, a.zummo@towertech.it, eddie.huang@mediatek.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 24/03/2018 at 15:14:12 +0800, Sean Wang wrote: > On Fri, 2018-03-23 at 11:21 +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > On 23/03/2018 at 17:15:03 +0800, sean.wang@mediatek.com wrote: > > > From: Sean Wang > > > > > > Remove unnecessary parentheses due to explicit C operator precedence. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sean Wang > > > --- > > > drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c > > > index 0df7ccd..4411c08 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c > > > +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-mt6397.c > > > @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ static irqreturn_t mtk_rtc_irq_handler_thread(int irq, void *data) > > > int ret; > > > > > > ret = regmap_read(rtc->regmap, rtc->addr_base + RTC_IRQ_STA, &irqsta); > > > - if ((ret >= 0) && (irqsta & RTC_IRQ_STA_AL)) { > > > + if (ret >= 0 && irqsta & RTC_IRQ_STA_AL) { > > > > I don't think this makes the code particularly clearer. > > > > But it is still a one of check items in checkpatch > > CHECK:UNNECESSARY_PARENTHESES: Unnecessary parentheses around 'ret >= 0' > #126: FILE: drivers/rtc/rtc-xxx.c:109: > + if ((ret >= 0) && (irqsta & RTC_IRQ_STA_AL)) { > > > or we still want to keep it in parentheses around here? > Yeah, this is a matter of taste, I would keep the parentheses. -- Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons) Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com