clang warns precedence of '?:' and '&'. Even though original logic is
correct, use str_enable_disable() to avoid clang confusing. Another way to
fix is to add parentheses around '&', but I choose former one.
>> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/rtw8852bt_rfk.c:1827:46: warning:
operator '?:' has lower precedence than '&'; '&' will be evaluated
first [-Wbitwise-conditional-parentheses]
1827 | kidx, dpk->is_dpk_enable & off_reverse ? "enable" : "disable");
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ^
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202407200741.dMG9uvHU-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/
Signed-off-by: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
v3: add by v3
---
drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/rtw8852bt_rfk.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/rtw8852bt_rfk.c b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/rtw8852bt_rfk.c
index 0f2a74269b98..e90a036db667 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/rtw8852bt_rfk.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/rtw8852bt_rfk.c
@@ -1824,7 +1824,7 @@ static void _dpk_onoff(struct rtw89_dev *rtwdev, enum rtw89_rf_path path, bool o
BIT(24), val);
rtw89_debug(rtwdev, RTW89_DBG_RFK, "[DPK] S%d[%d] DPK %s !!!\n", path,
- kidx, dpk->is_dpk_enable & off_reverse ? "enable" : "disable");
+ kidx, str_enable_disable(dpk->is_dpk_enable & off_reverse));
}
static void _dpk_one_shot(struct rtw89_dev *rtwdev, enum rtw89_phy_idx phy,
--
2.25.1
