On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 03:34:08PM +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/efi/efi-device.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/efi/efi-device.c b/drivers/efi/efi-device.c > index 6ed7f12b3..7029bfb31 100644 > --- a/drivers/efi/efi-device.c > +++ b/drivers/efi/efi-device.c > @@ -365,7 +365,7 @@ static int efi_is_secure_boot(void) > free(val); > } > > - return ret != 1; > + return ret != 0; > } > > static int efi_is_setup_mode(void) > @@ -379,7 +379,7 @@ static int efi_is_setup_mode(void) > free(val); > } > > - return ret != 1; > + return ret != 0; > } > > static int efi_init_devices(void) > @@ -406,7 +406,7 @@ static int efi_init_devices(void) > dev_add_param_int_ro(efi_bus.dev, "fw_revision", > efi_sys_table->fw_revision, "%u"); > dev_add_param_int_ro(efi_bus.dev, "secure_boot", secure_boot, "%d"); > dev_add_param_int_ro(efi_bus.dev, "secure_mode", > - secure_boot & setup_mode, "%u"); > + secure_boot & !setup_mode, "%u");
While a bitwise 'and' operator surely works with booleans here you should still use a logical 'and' operator here. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
