On 06/15/2011 08:36 PM, Henry Ptasinski wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 03:25:09PM -0700, Greg Dietsche wrote:
This code looks wrong to me. I think it meant to return false
if the board's vendor id isn't Broadcom's.
Compile tested only.
Signed-off-by: Greg Dietsche<Gregory.Dietsche@xxxxxxx>
---
drivers/staging/brcm80211/brcmsmac/wlc_bmac.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/brcm80211/brcmsmac/wlc_bmac.c b/drivers/staging/brcm80211/brcmsmac/wlc_bmac.c
index 4534926..ee13238 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/brcm80211/brcmsmac/wlc_bmac.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/brcm80211/brcmsmac/wlc_bmac.c
@@ -1943,7 +1943,7 @@ static bool wlc_validboardtype(struct wlc_hw_info *wlc_hw)
}
if (wlc_hw->sih->boardvendor != PCI_VENDOR_ID_BROADCOM)
- return goodboard;
+ goodboard = false;
return goodboard;
}
Actually, the original code is correct.
For boards with the Broadcom ID, this function checks that the boardrev is
sane. Dev boards that aren't properly configured may have invalid info, so this
check is mainly to catch that problem.
For boards with any other vendor, we don't have any sanity checks that we know
should be done, so the board info is always considered good.
The device ID is of course always checked.
- Henry
Hi Henry,
Thanks for the explanation - I'm still a little confused on this...
probably more because of how the code reads. Let me explain:
The part that threw me off in this code when I originally read it is
that it always returns goodboard. It doesn't actually matter what the
vendor id is. So my first thought was "what did they really mean to code
here...?" That's why I sent the patch. So if the patch isn't necessary,
then great! :) But it seems like we could/should just drop the check for
vendor id?
thanks,
Greg
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
