[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170124075538.871630752@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 08:55:36 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.9 096/130] ARM: ux500: fix prcmu_is_cpu_in_wfi() calculation
4.9-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
commit f0e8faa7a5e894b0fc99d24be1b18685a92ea466 upstream.
This function clearly never worked and always returns true,
as pointed out by gcc-7:
arch/arm/mach-ux500/pm.c: In function 'prcmu_is_cpu_in_wfi':
arch/arm/mach-ux500/pm.c:137:212: error: ?:
using integer constants in boolean context, the expression
will always evaluate to 'true' [-Werror=int-in-bool-context]
With the added braces, the condition actually makes sense.
Fixes: 34fe6f107eab ("mfd : Check if the other db8500 core is in WFI")
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
arch/arm/mach-ux500/pm.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/arch/arm/mach-ux500/pm.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-ux500/pm.c
@@ -134,8 +134,8 @@ bool prcmu_pending_irq(void)
*/
bool prcmu_is_cpu_in_wfi(int cpu)
{
- return readl(PRCM_ARM_WFI_STANDBY) & cpu ? PRCM_ARM_WFI_STANDBY_WFI1 :
- PRCM_ARM_WFI_STANDBY_WFI0;
+ return readl(PRCM_ARM_WFI_STANDBY) &
+ (cpu ? PRCM_ARM_WFI_STANDBY_WFI1 : PRCM_ARM_WFI_STANDBY_WFI0);
}
/*
Powered by blists - more mailing lists