[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ea0a43be-4143-7efa-b1c6-550ece6965f6@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 13:53:56 +1000
From: Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>
Cc: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
x86@...nel.org, Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@...wei.com>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
jianyong.wu@....com, justin.he@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 30/35] irqchip/gic-v3: Add support for ACPI's
disabled but 'online capable' CPUs
On 9/14/23 18:10, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 04:38:18PM +0000, James Morse wrote:
>> static inline bool acpi_gicc_is_usable(struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *gicc)
>> {
>> - return (gicc->flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED);
>> + return ((gicc->flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED ||
>> + gicc->flags & ACPI_MADT_GICC_CPU_CAPABLE));
>
> ... and this starts getting silly with the number of parens.
>
> return gicc->flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED ||
> gicc->flags & ACPI_MADT_GICC_CPU_CAPABLE;
>
> is entirely sufficient. Also:
>
> return gicc->flags & (ACPI_MADT_ENABLED | ACPI_MADT_GICC_CPU_CAPABLE);
>
> also works.
>
vote for the second one, which is: gicc->flags & (ACPI_MADT_ENABLED | ACPI_MADT_GICC_CPU_CAPABLE)
Thanks,
Gavin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists