This is from static analysis and not from testing. It doesn't really
make sense to talk about !BIT(0) so probably ~BIT(0) was intended.
I had to cast it from unsigned long to unsigned int to silence a GCC
warning.
Fixes: bb6869b21478 ("Peter Griffin <peter.griffin@xxxxxxxxxx>")
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
Sorry for the crap commit message. I'm pretty sure the static checker
warning is correct, but I don't know what the run time impact of this
bug would be.
drivers/remoteproc/st_slim_rproc.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/st_slim_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/st_slim_rproc.c
index d711d9430a4f..a646dfb9d6cd 100644
--- a/drivers/remoteproc/st_slim_rproc.c
+++ b/drivers/remoteproc/st_slim_rproc.c
@@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ static int slim_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc)
writel(SLIM_STBUS_SYNC_DIS, slim_rproc->peri + SLIM_STBUS_SYNC_OFST);
/* enable cpu pipeline clock */
- writel(!SLIM_CLK_GATE_DIS,
+ writel((unsigned int)~SLIM_CLK_GATE_DIS,
slim_rproc->slimcore + SLIM_CLK_GATE_OFST);
/* clear int & cmd mailbox */
@@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ static int slim_rproc_stop(struct rproc *rproc)
/* disable cpu pipeline clock */
writel(SLIM_CLK_GATE_DIS, slim_rproc->slimcore + SLIM_CLK_GATE_OFST);
- writel(!SLIM_EN_RUN, slim_rproc->slimcore + SLIM_EN_OFST);
+ writel((unsigned int)~SLIM_EN_RUN, slim_rproc->slimcore + SLIM_EN_OFST);
val = readl(slim_rproc->slimcore + SLIM_EN_OFST);
if (val & SLIM_EN_RUN)
--
2.17.1
