Hi Jani, On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 04:11:45PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Thu, 25 Jun 2026, Andi Shyti <[email protected]> wrote: > > intel_has_gpu_reset() returns logically correct values by > > returning a function pointer when GPU reset is supported and > > NULL otherwise. However, as a boolean helper, it is more > > appropriate to return explicit true or false values. > > > > Signed-off-by: Andi Shyti <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_reset.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_reset.c > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_reset.c > > index b2cf672564dd..a3f198646e1d 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_reset.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_reset.c > > @@ -797,9 +797,9 @@ static int __intel_gt_reset(struct intel_gt *gt, > > intel_engine_mask_t engine_mask > > bool intel_has_gpu_reset(const struct intel_gt *gt) > > { > > if (!gt->i915->params.reset) > > - return NULL; > > + return false; > > > > - return intel_get_gpu_reset(gt); > > + return !!intel_get_gpu_reset(gt); > > !! is superfluous.
OK, I can resend it. I actually like the use of "!!" because it explicitly converts the result to 1 or 0, by definition of true and false, but I don't have a strong opinion on it in this case. Thanks, Andi > > } > > > > bool intel_has_reset_engine(const struct intel_gt *gt) > > -- > Jani Nikula, Intel
