On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> FIFO_MODE is an macro expression with a '<<' operator, which
>> gcc points out could be misread as a '<':
>
> Yeah, no, NAK again.
>
> We don't make the code look worse just because gcc is being a f*cking
> moron about things.
>
> This warning is clearly pure garbage.
>
I looked at this one again and found a better approach, matching the
check that is done a few lines later. Unless you find something wrong
with that one, I'd resubmit it with the fixup below.
Arnd
--- a/drivers/input/misc/adxl34x.c
+++ b/drivers/input/misc/adxl34x.c
@@ -789,21 +789,21 @@ struct adxl34x *adxl34x_probe(struct device *dev, int irq,
__set_bit(pdata->ev_code_ff, input_dev->keybit);
}
if (pdata->ev_code_act_inactivity)
__set_bit(pdata->ev_code_act_inactivity, input_dev->keybit);
ac->int_mask |= ACTIVITY | INACTIVITY;
if (pdata->watermark) {
ac->int_mask |= WATERMARK;
- if (FIFO_MODE(pdata->fifo_mode) == 0)
+ if (FIFO_MODE(pdata->fifo_mode) == FIFO_BYPASS)
ac->pdata.fifo_mode |= FIFO_STREAM;
} else {
ac->int_mask |= DATA_READY;
}
if (pdata->tap_axis_control & (TAP_X_EN | TAP_Y_EN | TAP_Z_EN))
ac->int_mask |= SINGLE_TAP | DOUBLE_TAP;
if (FIFO_MODE(pdata->fifo_mode) == FIFO_BYPASS)
ac->fifo_delay = false;
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
