Hi Andy, On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 8:34 PM Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 12:38 PM Wolfgang Wallner > <wolfgang.wall...@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