On 11 December 2016 at 23:46, Arend van Spriel <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11-12-16 22:21, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >> From: Rafał Miłecki <[email protected]> >> >> I found handling of FW_OPT_FALLBACK a bit complex. It was defined using >> another option and their values were dependent on kernel config. >> >> It was also non-trivial to follow the code. Some callers were using >> FW_OPT_FALLBACK which was confusing since the _request_firmware function >> was always checking for FW_OPT_USERHELPER (the same bit in a relevant >> configuration). >> >> With this patch FW_OPT_USERHELPER gets its own bit and is explicitly >> checked in the _request_firmware which hopefully makes code easier to >> understand. >> >> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <[email protected]> >> --- >> V2: s/config_enabled/IS_ENABLED/ to compile since c0a0aba8e47 ("kconfig.h: >> remove config_enabled() macro") >> --- >> drivers/base/firmware_class.c | 12 ++++++------ >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/base/firmware_class.c b/drivers/base/firmware_class.c >> index 22d1760..0e1d5b8 100644 >> --- a/drivers/base/firmware_class.c >> +++ b/drivers/base/firmware_class.c >> @@ -112,13 +112,9 @@ static inline long firmware_loading_timeout(void) >> #else >> #define FW_OPT_USERHELPER 0 >> #endif >> -#ifdef CONFIG_FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER_FALLBACK >> -#define FW_OPT_FALLBACK FW_OPT_USERHELPER >> -#else >> -#define FW_OPT_FALLBACK 0 >> -#endif >> #define FW_OPT_NO_WARN (1U << 3) >> #define FW_OPT_NOCACHE (1U << 4) >> +#define FW_OPT_FALLBACK (1U << 5) >> >> struct firmware_cache { >> /* firmware_buf instance will be added into the below list */ >> @@ -1175,8 +1171,12 @@ _request_firmware(const struct firmware **firmware_p, >> const char *name, >> dev_warn(device, >> "Direct firmware load for %s failed with >> error %d\n", >> name, ret); >> - if (opt_flags & FW_OPT_USERHELPER) { >> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER_FALLBACK) && >> + opt_flags & FW_OPT_FALLBACK) { > > When mixing logical and binary expressions I would suggest putting the > binary expression between brackets.
I checked my patch with checkpatch.pl before sending and it didn't complain. I just re-read CodingStyle but I didn't find any info on this. It this some upstream-documented preference for coding style? -- Rafał
