On Sat, 2024-04-27 at 04:11 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 4/27/24 01:33, Frank Crawford wrote: ... > > @@ -3144,7 +3186,7 @@ static int __init it87_find(int sioaddr, > > unsigned short *address, > > } > > > > exit: > > - superio_exit(sioaddr, config ? has_noconf(config) : false); > > + superio_exit(sioaddr, opened && config && has_noconf(config)); > > If 'opened' is false, this could be an affected chip. Are you sure > that it makes sense to pass 'false' as parameter here in that case ? > Doesn't that mean that the chip might be one of the affected chips, > but the superio exit sequence would be executed anyway ? > Am I missing something ? Ohh, you may be right, I think I have got myself confused here with opened and how it is used in superio_exit. I think it should be !opened, but I will just check I still haven't messed it up. > > Guenter Thanks Frank
