kp2000_check_uio_irq contained a pair of nested ifs which each evaluated
a bitwise operation. If both operations yielded true, the function
returned 1; otherwise it returned 0.
Replaced the whole thing with one return statement that evaluates the
combination of both bitwise operations.
Signed-off-by: Jeremy Sowden <jer...@azazel.net>
---
This applies to staging-testing.
I was in two minds whether to send this patch or something less terse:
+ return (interrupt_active & irq_check_mask) &&
+ (interrupt_mask_inv & irq_check_mask);
drivers/staging/kpc2000/kpc2000/cell_probe.c | 10 ++++------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/kpc2000/kpc2000/cell_probe.c
b/drivers/staging/kpc2000/kpc2000/cell_probe.c
index f731a97c6cac..d10f695b6673 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/kpc2000/kpc2000/cell_probe.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/kpc2000/kpc2000/cell_probe.c
@@ -240,12 +240,10 @@ int kp2000_check_uio_irq(struct kp2000_device *pcard,
u32 irq_num)
u64 interrupt_mask_inv = ~readq(pcard->sysinfo_regs_base +
REG_INTERRUPT_MASK);
u64 irq_check_mask = (1 << irq_num);
- if (interrupt_active & irq_check_mask) { // if it's active (interrupt
pending)
- if (interrupt_mask_inv & irq_check_mask) { // and if it's
not masked off
- return 1;
- }
- }
- return 0;
+ /*
+ * Is the IRQ active (interrupt pending) and not masked off?
+ */
+ return (interrupt_active & interrupt_mask_inv & irq_check_mask) != 0;
}
static
--
2.20.1
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
