On 2017-05-13 15:36, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> wrote: >> First, the logic for translating a register bit to the return code of >> exar_get_direction and exar_get_value were wrong. And second, there was >> a flip regarding the register bank in exar_get_direction. > > Again, I wish it was tested in the first place. > > After addressing below: > FWIW: > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevche...@gmail.com> > >> @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ static int exar_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int >> reg) >> value = readb(exar_gpio->regs + reg); >> mutex_unlock(&exar_gpio->lock); >> >> - return !!value; >> + return value; > > This one is correct. > >> @@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ static int exar_get_direction(struct gpio_chip *chip, >> unsigned int offset) >> addr = bank ? EXAR_OFFSET_MPIOSEL_HI : EXAR_OFFSET_MPIOSEL_LO; >> val = exar_get(chip, addr) >> (offset % 8); >> >> - return !!val; >> + return val & 1; > > It should be rather > > val = exar_get(chip, addr) & BIT(offset % 8);
That won't give us 0 or 1 as return value, thus would be incorrect. > >> } >> >> static int exar_get_value(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int offset) >> @@ -89,10 +89,10 @@ static int exar_get_value(struct gpio_chip *chip, >> unsigned int offset) >> unsigned int addr; >> int val; >> >> - addr = bank ? EXAR_OFFSET_MPIOLVL_LO : EXAR_OFFSET_MPIOLVL_HI; >> + addr = bank ? EXAR_OFFSET_MPIOLVL_HI : EXAR_OFFSET_MPIOLVL_LO; > > Good catch! > >> val = exar_get(chip, addr) >> (offset % 8); >> >> - return !!val; >> + return val & 1; > > Ditto (see above). > Same here. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA ITP SES-DE Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
