wifi: rtw89: 8852bt: rfk: use predefined string choice for DPK enable/disable

clang warns precedence of '?:' and '&'. Even though original logic is
correct, use str_enable_disable() to avoid clang confusing. Another way to
fix is to add parentheses around '&', but I choose former one.

  >> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/rtw8852bt_rfk.c:1827:46: warning:
     operator '?:' has lower precedence than '&'; '&' will be evaluated
     first [-Wbitwise-conditional-parentheses]
    1827 |                     kidx, dpk->is_dpk_enable & off_reverse ? "enable" : "disable");
         |                           ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ^

Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202407200741.dMG9uvHU-lkp@intel.com/
Signed-off-by: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20240720021340.12102-3-pkshih@realtek.com

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/rtw8852bt_rfk.c b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/rtw8852bt_rfk.c
index 0f2a74269b981174d4a5814d91c9fcc0631cfbd1..e90a036db667d87b3f8a756c9f505ad4c967eeac 100644 (file)
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/rtw8852bt_rfk.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/rtw8852bt_rfk.c
@@ -1824,7 +1824,7 @@ static void _dpk_onoff(struct rtw89_dev *rtwdev, enum rtw89_rf_path path, bool o
                               BIT(24), val);
 
        rtw89_debug(rtwdev, RTW89_DBG_RFK, "[DPK] S%d[%d] DPK %s !!!\n", path,
-                   kidx, dpk->is_dpk_enable & off_reverse ? "enable" : "disable");
+                   kidx, str_enable_disable(dpk->is_dpk_enable & off_reverse));
 }
 
 static void _dpk_one_shot(struct rtw89_dev *rtwdev, enum rtw89_phy_idx phy,