On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote: > 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
I have added a new rule to the coding conventions. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
