On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 01:51:35PM +0000, Bernd Porr wrote:
> > Force of habit because some compilers issue a warning when a bitwise
> > operator is used in a context expecting a logical result.
> indeed. Good point.
>
Ian already redid this (Thanks!).
I understand about habbits, but I don't think I have seen any bug
where using a bitwise operation instead of a logical as a condition
caused a problem.
It's not a CodingStyle thing and I did say I was fine with the first
patch as-is. It's not a huge deal, but that the double negative
always hurts my brain a little.
For example here is an inverted if statement:
commit 4659b7f1fa3eb33a8f9a9dd209a5823602dc6dcf
Author: Robert Lee <rob.lee@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon Apr 16 18:37:48 2012 -0500
ARM: imx: Fix imx5 idle logic bug
The imx5_idle() check of the tzic_eanble_wake() return value uses
incorrect (inverted) logic causing all attempt to idle to fail.
Signed-off-by: Robert Lee <rob.lee@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-imx/mm-imx5.c b/arch/arm/mach-imx/mm-imx5.c
index 05250ae..e10f391 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/mm-imx5.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/mm-imx5.c
@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ static void imx5_idle(void)
}
clk_enable(gpc_dvfs_clk);
mx5_cpu_lp_set(WAIT_UNCLOCKED_POWER_OFF);
- if (tzic_enable_wake() != 0)
+ if (!tzic_enable_wake())
cpu_do_idle();
clk_disable(gpc_dvfs_clk);
}
Of course, part of the problem with this function is that
tzic_enable_wake() looks like it might return bool, but it actually
returns zero on success and negative error codes. It probably would
have been a better test like this:
if (tzic_enable_wake() < 0) { ... /* it failed */
if (tzic_enable_wake() == 0) { ... /* it succeeded */
Or
ret = tzic_enable_wake();
if (ret)
goto fail;
ret = tzic_enable_wake();
if (!ret)
cpu_do_idle();
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
