Re: [arm-perf:for-next/perf 6/8] drivers/perf/arm-ni.c:433:13: warning: operator '?:' has lower precedence than '+'; '+' will be evaluated first

[Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Nov 04, 2025 at 05:43:40PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> tree:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/will/linux.git for-next/perf
> head:   989b40b7578a2be7b0388522d33d751b257d59d9
> commit: 8fa08f8835e57e1fd5e2994c9cf76c84dadc1235 [6/8] perf/arm-ni: Add NoC S3 support
> config: sparc64-randconfig-002-20251104 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20251104/202511041749.ok8zDP6u-lkp@intel.com/config)
> compiler: clang version 22.0.0git (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project d2625a438020ad35330cda29c3def102c1687b1b)
> reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20251104/202511041749.ok8zDP6u-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)
> 
> If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
> the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
> | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202511041749.ok8zDP6u-lkp@intel.com/
> 
> All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
> 
> >> drivers/perf/arm-ni.c:433:13: warning: operator '?:' has lower precedence than '+'; '+' will be evaluated first [-Wparentheses]
>      432 |                 hw->event_base = (unsigned long)cd->pmu_base +
>          |                                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>      433 |                                  is_7xx ? NI700_PMCCNTR_L : NI_PMCCNTR_L;
>          |                                  ~~~~~~ ^
>    drivers/perf/arm-ni.c:433:13: note: place parentheses around the '+' expression to silence this warning
>      432 |                 hw->event_base = (unsigned long)cd->pmu_base +
>          |                                  (
>      433 |                                  is_7xx ? NI700_PMCCNTR_L : NI_PMCCNTR_L;
>          |                                         ^
>          |                                        )

Hrm. Doesn't that mean this is completely broken or am I misreading the
report?

Will