The way state->enabled is computed is rather convoluted and hard to read - both branches of the if() actually do the exact same thing. So remove the if(), and further simplify "<boolean condition> ? true : false" to "<boolean condition>".
Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <[email protected]> --- I stumbled on this while trying to understand how the pwm subsystem works. This patch is a semantic no-op, but it's also possible that, say, the first branch simply contains a "double negative" so either the != should be == or the "false : true" should be "true : false". drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c | 7 +------ 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c index 51b96cb7dd25..54c6399e3f00 100644 --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rockchip.c @@ -83,12 +83,7 @@ static void rockchip_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, state->duty_cycle = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(tmp, clk_rate); val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl); - if (pc->data->supports_polarity) - state->enabled = ((val & enable_conf) != enable_conf) ? - false : true; - else - state->enabled = ((val & enable_conf) == enable_conf) ? - true : false; + state->enabled = ((val & enable_conf) == enable_conf); if (pc->data->supports_polarity) { if (!(val & PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE)) -- 2.20.1
