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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
