On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 05:09:34PM +0530, Shradha Todi wrote:
> ...
> > Another question about the test:
> >
> > if ((val & FSD_IRQ_MSI_ENABLE) == FSD_IRQ_MSI_ENABLE) {
> >
> > This assumes there are no other bits in FSD_IRQ2_STS that could be
> > set. I would have expected a test like this:
> >
> > if (val & FSD_IRQ_MSI_ENABLE) {
>
> Thanks for pointing this out. FSD_IRQ_MSI_ENABLE is a single-bit, so there
> is no functional difference in the two statements. I didn't have a specific
> reason for using "== FSD_IRQ_MSI_ENABLE".
> But I see that "val & FSD_IRQ_MSI_ENABLE" would have been the more
> standard way to write this. I will update this for clarity.
Oof, sorry, I don't know what I was thinking. You're right, it's OK
as is. But "val & FSD_IRQ_MSI_ENABLE" *is* shorter and more
idiomatic, so I think preferable anyway.
Bjorn
