Hi Dan
On 12/18/18 9:16 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> 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)
>
Writing !SLIM_CLK_GATE_DIS or (unsigned int)~SLIM_CLK_GATE_DIS don't
give the same result:
!SLIM_CLK_GATE_DIS = 0
(unsigned int)~SLIM_CLK_GATE_DIS = 0xfffffffe
Patrice
