On 14/4/17 6:48 pm, Gedare Bloom 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.
Yuck. > > 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. Yes the explicit form is much better. Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
