[PATCH v2 3/3] gpio: intel_gpio: Fix register/bit offsets intel_gpio_get_value()

[Bin Meng]

Hi Andy,

On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 8:34 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 12:38 PM Wolfgang Wallner
> <wolfgang.wallner at br-automation.com> wrote:
> >
> > Fix the following in intel_gpio_get_value():
> >
> >  * The value of the register is contained in the variable 'reg', not in
> >    'mode'. The variable 'mode' contains only the configuration whether
> >    the gpio is currently an input or an output.
> >
> >  * The correct bitmasks for the input and output value are
> >    PAD_CFG0_RX_STATE and PAD_CFG0_TX_STATE.
> >    Use them instead of the currently used PAD_CFG0_RX_STATE_BIT and
> >    PAD_CFG0_TX_STATE_BIT.
>
> ...
>
> >         if (!mode) {
> >                 rx_tx = reg & (PAD_CFG0_TX_DISABLE | PAD_CFG0_RX_DISABLE);
> >                 if (rx_tx == PAD_CFG0_TX_DISABLE)
> > -                       return mode & PAD_CFG0_RX_STATE_BIT ? 1 : 0;
> > +                       return reg & PAD_CFG0_RX_STATE ? 1 : 0;
>
> Is it style of U-Boot? Because
> return !!(...); will have same effect while consuming less characters.

checkpatch does not complain, so I assume it is okay for U-Boot.

>
> >                 else if (rx_tx == PAD_CFG0_RX_DISABLE)
>
> 'else' is redundant here
>
> > -                       return mode & PAD_CFG0_TX_STATE_BIT ? 1 : 0;
> > +                       return reg & PAD_CFG0_TX_STATE ? 1 : 0;
> >         }
>
>
> --

Regards,
Bin