[PATCH 27/30] leon, gptimer: fixed probing separate interrupts

[Daniel Hellstrom]

On 2017-04-15 02:51, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Chris Johns <chrisj at rtems.org> wrote:
>> On 14/4/17 6:48 pm, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:19 PM, Chris Johns <chrisj at rtems.org> wrote:
>>>> On 14/4/17 5:31 am, Daniel Hellstrom wrote:
>>>>> From: Martin Aberg <maberg at gaisler.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Probing of separate interrupts was done by storing the GPTIMER_CFG_SI bit. But
>>>>> it was never actually stored since it is bit 8 and the datatype is 8-bit. Now
>>>>> store the AND result as boolean value instead.
>>>>> ---
>>>>>   c/src/lib/libbsp/sparc/shared/timer/gptimer.c | 2 +-
>>>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/c/src/lib/libbsp/sparc/shared/timer/gptimer.c b/c/src/lib/libbsp/sparc/shared/timer/gptimer.c
>>>>> index e701211..d26d007 100644
>>>>> --- a/c/src/lib/libbsp/sparc/shared/timer/gptimer.c
>>>>> +++ b/c/src/lib/libbsp/sparc/shared/timer/gptimer.c
>>>>> @@ -293,7 +293,7 @@ int gptimer_init1(struct drvmgr_dev *dev)
>>>>>         *  B. Each Timer have an individual IRQ. The number is:
>>>>>         *        BASE_IRQ + timer_index
>>>>>         */
>>>>> -     priv->separate_interrupt = regs->cfg & GPTIMER_CFG_SI;
>>>>> +     priv->separate_interrupt = !!(regs->cfg & GPTIMER_CFG_SI);
>>>> Is this suppose to be not not?
>>>>
>>> The !! is a C pattern to check for a non-zero value.
>> Yuck.
>>
>>> Generally it is the same as
>>> (regs->cfg & GPTIMER_CFG_SI) != 0;
>>>
>>> I would also prefer the more explicit form, since we don't use the !!
>>> pattern in RTEMS it is a bit confusing for someone to see and
>>> understand.
>> Yes the explicit form is much better.
>>
>> Chris
> I have added a new rule to the coding conventions.

Hi,

Thanks for the comment I will repost an updated patch without the !!

/Daniel