[PATCH] drm/xe: Fix operator precedence bug in emit_flush_invalidate

[lirongqing <lirongqing@baidu.com>]

From: Li RongQing <lirongqing@baidu.com>

The expression:
    MI_FLUSH_IMM_DW | (flush_flags & MI_INVALIDATE_TLB) ?: 0;

is parsed as:
    (MI_FLUSH_DW | MI_FLUSH_DW_OP_STOREDW | MI_FLUSH_IMM_DW |
     (flush_flags & MI_INVALIDATE_TLB)) ?: 0;

Since the combined constant flags are always non-zero, the GNU extension
'?: 0' acts as a no-op and does not change the value. Remove this redundant
and confusing logic.

Signed-off-by: Li RongQing <lirongqing@baidu.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ring_ops.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ring_ops.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ring_ops.c
index cfeb4fc..ee468d3 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ring_ops.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ring_ops.c
@@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ static int emit_bb_start(u64 batch_addr, u32 ppgtt_flag, u32 *dw, int i)
 static int emit_flush_invalidate(u32 addr, u32 val, u32 flush_flags, u32 *dw, int i)
 {
 	dw[i++] = MI_FLUSH_DW | MI_FLUSH_DW_OP_STOREDW |
-		  MI_FLUSH_IMM_DW | (flush_flags & MI_INVALIDATE_TLB) ?: 0;
+		  MI_FLUSH_IMM_DW | (flush_flags & MI_INVALIDATE_TLB);
 
 	dw[i++] = addr | MI_FLUSH_DW_USE_GTT;
 	dw[i++] = 0;
-- 
2.9.4