"Kevin 'ldir' Darbyshire-Bryant" writes:
>> it looks indeed wrong. And looking more closer at the lines, I don't
>> get why we need the double negation.
>
> Having seen this code structure before, it’s a non-obvious way of
> turning a masked and hence value based true/false into a binary 0 or 1
>
> On 17 Feb 2019, at 08:57, Mathias Kresin wrote:
>
> 08/02/2019 09:23, Petr Cvek:
>> Hello,
>> There is a wrong code in 0025-NET-MIPS-lantiq-adds-xrx200-net.patch [1], the
>> original code:
>> +link->rx_flow = !!(xrx200sw_read_x(XRX200_MAC_CTRL_0_FCON, port) &&
>> 0x0010);
>> +link->
08/02/2019 09:23, Petr Cvek:
Hello,
There is a wrong code in 0025-NET-MIPS-lantiq-adds-xrx200-net.patch [1], the
original code:
+ link->rx_flow = !!(xrx200sw_read_x(XRX200_MAC_CTRL_0_FCON, port) &&
0x0010);
+ link->tx_flow = !!(xrx200sw_read_x(XRX200_MAC_CTRL_0_FCON, port) &&
0x0
Hello,
There is a wrong code in 0025-NET-MIPS-lantiq-adds-xrx200-net.patch [1], the
original code:
+ link->rx_flow = !!(xrx200sw_read_x(XRX200_MAC_CTRL_0_FCON, port) &&
0x0010);
+ link->tx_flow = !!(xrx200sw_read_x(XRX200_MAC_CTRL_0_FCON, port) &&
0x0020);
wants to mask the regist
