[PATCH] rtc: stm32: One function call less in stm32_rtc_set_alarm()

[PATCH] rtc: stm32: One function call less in stm32_rtc_set_alarm()

[Markus Elfring]

From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 22:10:10 +0200

Avoid an extra function call by using a ternary operator instead of
a conditional statement.

This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.

Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
---
 drivers/rtc/rtc-stm32.c | 6 +-----
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-stm32.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-stm32.c
index 8e6c9b3bcc29..83793b530fed 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-stm32.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-stm32.c
@@ -519,11 +519,7 @@ static int stm32_rtc_set_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
 	/* Write to Alarm register */
 	writel_relaxed(alrmar, rtc->base + regs->alrmar);

-	if (alrm->enabled)
-		stm32_rtc_alarm_irq_enable(dev, 1);
-	else
-		stm32_rtc_alarm_irq_enable(dev, 0);
-
+	stm32_rtc_alarm_irq_enable(dev, alrm->enabled ? 1 : 0);
 end:
 	stm32_rtc_wpr_lock(rtc);

--
2.22.0

Re: [PATCH] rtc: stm32: One function call less in stm32_rtc_set_alarm()

[Russell King - ARM Linux admin]

On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 10:17:11PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 22:10:10 +0200
> 
> Avoid an extra function call by using a ternary operator instead of
> a conditional statement.

... and a totally pointless use of the ternary operator.

> @@ -519,11 +519,7 @@ static int stm32_rtc_set_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
>  	/* Write to Alarm register */
>  	writel_relaxed(alrmar, rtc->base + regs->alrmar);
> 
> -	if (alrm->enabled)
> -		stm32_rtc_alarm_irq_enable(dev, 1);
> -	else
> -		stm32_rtc_alarm_irq_enable(dev, 0);
> -
> +	stm32_rtc_alarm_irq_enable(dev, alrm->enabled ? 1 : 0);

If we look at stm32_rtc_alarm_irq_enable():

static int stm32_rtc_alarm_irq_enable(struct device *dev, unsigned int enabled)
{
...
	if (enabled)
		do A;
	else
		do B;
...
}

alrm->enabled is an unsigned char.  So, the above can be simplified to:

	stm32_rtc_alarm_irq_enable(dev, alrm->enabled);

without any need what so ever to use the ternary operator.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up

[PATCH v2] rtc: stm32: One condition check and function call less in stm32_rtc_set_alarm()

[Markus Elfring]

From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 10:26:47 +0200

A condition check was repeated in this function implementation despite of
a corresponding check in the stm32_rtc_alarm_irq_enable() function.
Thus delete redundant source code here.

Suggested-by: Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190707211638.sehikkear25dffah@shell.armlinux.org.uk/

This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.

Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
---

v2:
Russell King pointed the change possibility out to omit a condition check
at this place.


 drivers/rtc/rtc-stm32.c | 6 +-----
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-stm32.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-stm32.c
index 8e6c9b3bcc29..773a1990b93f 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-stm32.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-stm32.c
@@ -519,11 +519,7 @@ static int stm32_rtc_set_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
 	/* Write to Alarm register */
 	writel_relaxed(alrmar, rtc->base + regs->alrmar);

-	if (alrm->enabled)
-		stm32_rtc_alarm_irq_enable(dev, 1);
-	else
-		stm32_rtc_alarm_irq_enable(dev, 0);
-
+	stm32_rtc_alarm_irq_enable(dev, alrm->enabled);
 end:
 	stm32_rtc_wpr_lock(rtc);

--
2.22.0

Re: [PATCH v2] rtc: stm32: One condition check and function call less in stm32_rtc_set_alarm()

[Amelie DELAUNAY]

On 7/8/19 10:42 AM, Markus Elfring wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 10:26:47 +0200
> 
> A condition check was repeated in this function implementation despite of
> a corresponding check in the stm32_rtc_alarm_irq_enable() function.
> Thus delete redundant source code here.
> 
> Suggested-by: Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190707211638.sehikkear25dffah@shell.armlinux.org.uk/
> 
> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>

Reviewed-by: Amelie Delaunay <amelie.delaunay@st.com>

> ---
> 
> v2:
> Russell King pointed the change possibility out to omit a condition check
> at this place.
> 
> 
>   drivers/rtc/rtc-stm32.c | 6 +-----
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-stm32.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-stm32.c
> index 8e6c9b3bcc29..773a1990b93f 100644
> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-stm32.c
> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-stm32.c
> @@ -519,11 +519,7 @@ static int stm32_rtc_set_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm)
>   	/* Write to Alarm register */
>   	writel_relaxed(alrmar, rtc->base + regs->alrmar);
> 
> -	if (alrm->enabled)
> -		stm32_rtc_alarm_irq_enable(dev, 1);
> -	else
> -		stm32_rtc_alarm_irq_enable(dev, 0);
> -
> +	stm32_rtc_alarm_irq_enable(dev, alrm->enabled);
>   end:
>   	stm32_rtc_wpr_lock(rtc);
> 
> --
> 2.22.0
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>