Hi Tom, On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 at 13:16, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 01, 2024 at 08:24:22AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > Simplify a few expressions in this function. > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > --- > > > > (no changes since v1) > > > > lib/efi_loader/efi_memory.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/efi_memory.c b/lib/efi_loader/efi_memory.c > > index f1154f73e05..3b1c7528e92 100644 > > --- a/lib/efi_loader/efi_memory.c > > +++ b/lib/efi_loader/efi_memory.c > > @@ -206,11 +206,11 @@ static s64 efi_mem_carve_out(struct efi_mem_list *map, > > (carve_desc->num_pages << EFI_PAGE_SHIFT); > > > > /* check whether we're overlapping */ > > - if ((carve_end <= map_start) || (carve_start >= map_end)) > > + if (carve_end <= map_start || carve_start >= map_end) > > return EFI_CARVE_NO_OVERLAP; > > > > /* We're overlapping with non-RAM, warn the caller if desired */ > > - if (overlap_conventional && (map_desc->type != > > EFI_CONVENTIONAL_MEMORY)) > > + if (overlap_conventional && map_desc->type != EFI_CONVENTIONAL_MEMORY) > > return EFI_CARVE_OVERLAPS_NONRAM; > > > > /* Sanitize carve_start and carve_end to lie within our bounds */ > > As I believe was mentioned in a previous iteration, please drop this as > they aren't excessive generates a compiler warning, merely for > clarification and should be kept.
I did this patch because checkpatch complained and I am changing these lines. Regards, Simon
