Message ID | f04277da-8a98-473e-2566-ac7846f9f8e1@web.de (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
Series | rtc: stm32: One function call less in stm32_rtc_set_alarm() | expand |
On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 10:17:11PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote: > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> > Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 22:10:10 +0200 > > Avoid an extra function call by using a ternary operator instead of > a conditional statement. ... and a totally pointless use of the ternary operator. > @@ -519,11 +519,7 @@ static int stm32_rtc_set_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm) > /* Write to Alarm register */ > writel_relaxed(alrmar, rtc->base + regs->alrmar); > > - if (alrm->enabled) > - stm32_rtc_alarm_irq_enable(dev, 1); > - else > - stm32_rtc_alarm_irq_enable(dev, 0); > - > + stm32_rtc_alarm_irq_enable(dev, alrm->enabled ? 1 : 0); If we look at stm32_rtc_alarm_irq_enable(): static int stm32_rtc_alarm_irq_enable(struct device *dev, unsigned int enabled) { ... if (enabled) do A; else do B; ... } alrm->enabled is an unsigned char. So, the above can be simplified to: stm32_rtc_alarm_irq_enable(dev, alrm->enabled); without any need what so ever to use the ternary operator.
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-stm32.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-stm32.c index 8e6c9b3bcc29..83793b530fed 100644 --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-stm32.c +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-stm32.c @@ -519,11 +519,7 @@ static int stm32_rtc_set_alarm(struct device *dev, struct rtc_wkalrm *alrm) /* Write to Alarm register */ writel_relaxed(alrmar, rtc->base + regs->alrmar); - if (alrm->enabled) - stm32_rtc_alarm_irq_enable(dev, 1); - else - stm32_rtc_alarm_irq_enable(dev, 0); - + stm32_rtc_alarm_irq_enable(dev, alrm->enabled ? 1 : 0); end: stm32_rtc_wpr_lock(rtc);