Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Comparisons should place the constant on the right side of the test

Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Comparisons should place the constant on the right side of the test

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 04:29:54PM +0200, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c b/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c
> index 9a5cd63..551e3064 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c
> @@ -645,7 +645,7 @@ int switch_ssc_clock(struct rtsx_chip *chip, int clk)
>  	dev_dbg(rtsx_dev(chip), "Switch SSC clock to %dMHz (cur_clk = %d)\n",
>  		clk, chip->cur_clk);
>  
> -	if ((clk <= 2) || (N > max_N)) {
> +	if ((clk <= 2) || (max_N < N)) {

Where is the constant?

The original code looks fine to me...

Also, I can't take patches where there is no changelog text, sorry.

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Comparisons should place the constant on the right side of the test

[Sergio Paracuellos]

That's true. It seems that checkpatch script is getting a false 
positive. Just trying to do checkpatch happy. Sorry for inconvenience.

I'll be careful with Changelog stuff from now. Thanks for advice.

Cheers,
	Sergio Paracuellos

El 2016年09月15日 a las 16:51, Greg KH escribió:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 04:29:54PM +0200, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c | 4 ++--
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c b/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c
>> index 9a5cd63..551e3064 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c
>> @@ -645,7 +645,7 @@ int switch_ssc_clock(struct rtsx_chip *chip, int clk)
>>   	dev_dbg(rtsx_dev(chip), "Switch SSC clock to %dMHz (cur_clk = %d)\n",
>>   		clk, chip->cur_clk);
>>
>> -	if ((clk <= 2) || (N > max_N)) {
>> +	if ((clk <= 2) || (max_N < N)) {
>
> Where is the constant?
>
> The original code looks fine to me...
>
> Also, I can't take patches where there is no changelog text, sorry.
>
> greg k-h
>

Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Comparisons should place the constant on the right side of the test

[Joe Perches]

On Thu, 2016-09-15 at 19:22 +0200, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
> That's true. It seems that checkpatch script is getting a false 
> positive. Just trying to do checkpatch happy. Sorry for inconvenience.

Keeping the style consistent instead of taking the simplest path
to quiet the checkpatch messages is better.

Making N, min_N, max_N all lower case would be better.

Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Comparisons should place the constant on the right side of the test

[Dan Carpenter]

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 07:22:40PM +0200, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
> That's true. It seems that checkpatch script is getting a false
> positive. Just trying to do checkpatch happy.

Also the old code was better than new code so leave it alone.

regards,
dan carpenter