On 2017-04-15 02:51, Gedare Bloom wrote:
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.
Hi,
Thanks for the comment I will repost an updated patch without the !!
/Daniel
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
