On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:05:47 -0800
Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 04:35:16PM +0000, tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: Tim Schofield <tim.schofield1960@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > ---
> > drivers/staging/rtl8192e/r8180_93cx6.c | 22 ++++++++++++++--------
> > 1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/r8180_93cx6.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/r8180_93cx6.c
> > index 262ed5f..60fba80 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/r8180_93cx6.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/r8180_93cx6.c
> > @@ -23,12 +23,14 @@
> > static void eprom_cs(struct net_device *dev, short bit)
> > {
> > if (bit)
> > + /* enable EPROM */
> > write_nic_byte(dev, EPROM_CMD,
> > (1<<EPROM_CS_SHIFT) | \
> > - read_nic_byte(dev, EPROM_CMD)); //enable EPROM
> > + read_nic_byte(dev, EPROM_CMD));
> > else
> > + /* disable EPROM */
> > write_nic_byte(dev, EPROM_CMD, read_nic_byte(dev, EPROM_CMD)\
> > - &~(1<<EPROM_CS_SHIFT)); //disable EPROM
> > + &~(1<<EPROM_CS_SHIFT));
>
> This does not do what you think it does (hint, you need {} if you want
> to have more than one line in an if statement...)
>
> Can you always verify that your coding style changes do not actually
> break the code? A simple comparison of the .ko file before and after
> should be sufficient.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
hm... no.. seems to be correct... the comment get's ignored. But I
agree that {} would be nicer to the eye...
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
