Re: [PATCH] counter: stm32: clean up indentation issue

[Fabrice Gasnier]

On 10/5/19 7:30 PM, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 10:51:26AM +0100, Colin King wrote:
>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> There is an if statement that is indented one level too deeply,
>> remove the extraneous tabs.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  drivers/counter/stm32-timer-cnt.c | 4 ++--
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/counter/stm32-timer-cnt.c b/drivers/counter/stm32-timer-cnt.c
>> index 644ba18a72ad..613dcccf79e1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/counter/stm32-timer-cnt.c
>> +++ b/drivers/counter/stm32-timer-cnt.c
>> @@ -219,8 +219,8 @@ static ssize_t stm32_count_enable_write(struct counter_device *counter,
>>  
>>  	if (enable) {
>>  		regmap_read(priv->regmap, TIM_CR1, &cr1);
>> -			if (!(cr1 & TIM_CR1_CEN))
>> -				clk_enable(priv->clk);
>> +		if (!(cr1 & TIM_CR1_CEN))
>> +			clk_enable(priv->clk);
>>  
>>  		regmap_update_bits(priv->regmap, TIM_CR1, TIM_CR1_CEN,
>>  				   TIM_CR1_CEN);
>> -- 
>> 2.20.1
> 
> Acked-by: William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Fabrice,
> 
> I noticed the TIM_CR1_CEN check is happening before the
> regmap_update_bits call for the enable path, while the disable path does
> the check after. Is this logic is correct.

Hi  William,

In the disable path, things are done in the reverse order, purpose is to:
- enable the clock before enabling the counter (CEN)
- disable the clock after the counter has been disabled
Current code also takes care of balancing clock enable/disable calls.

BR,
Fabrice
> 
> William Breathitt Gray
>