On Apr 14, 2017 3:48 AM, "Gedare Bloom" <ged...@rtems.org> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:19 PM, Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote: > On 14/4/17 5:31 am, Daniel Hellstrom wrote: >> From: Martin Aberg <mab...@gaisler.com> >> >> Probing of separate interrupts was done by storing the GPTIMER_CFG_SI bit. But >> it was never actually stored since it is bit 8 and the datatype is 8-bit. Now >> store the AND result as boolean value instead. >> --- >> c/src/lib/libbsp/sparc/shared/timer/gptimer.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/c/src/lib/libbsp/sparc/shared/timer/gptimer.c b/c/src/lib/libbsp/sparc/shared/timer/gptimer.c >> index e701211..d26d007 100644 >> --- a/c/src/lib/libbsp/sparc/shared/timer/gptimer.c >> +++ b/c/src/lib/libbsp/sparc/shared/timer/gptimer.c >> @@ -293,7 +293,7 @@ int gptimer_init1(struct drvmgr_dev *dev) >> * B. Each Timer have an individual IRQ. The number is: >> * BASE_IRQ + timer_index >> */ >> - priv->separate_interrupt = regs->cfg & GPTIMER_CFG_SI; >> + priv->separate_interrupt = !!(regs->cfg & GPTIMER_CFG_SI); > > Is this suppose to be not not? > The !! is a C pattern to check for a non-zero value. Generally it is the same as (regs->cfg & GPTIMER_CFG_SI) != 0; I would also prefer the more explicit form, since we don't use the !! pattern in RTEMS it is a bit confusing for someone to see and understand. With Sebastian on holiday, I get the chance to ask... Is this rule written down in the Coding Style? :) Please add it. I usually get busted on this. Nice to be on the other side for once. :) > I prefer to see `(regs->cfg & GPTIMER_CFG_SI) == 0`. > > Chris > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@rtems.org > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
