On 4/27/24 04:53, Frank Crawford wrote:
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.
It took me a while to understand as well. The double negation of the
'noentry' parameter makes it difficult to understand.
I think it should be !opened, but I will just check I still haven't
messed it up.
Maybe it should be something like
!config && !opened || /* no or unknown chip, not enabled */
config && has_noconf(config) /* chip known to be affected */
which would translate "don't disable configuration mode for affected chips
and for unknown chips if configuration mode was not enabled".
Btw, I think "enabled" might be a better variable name.
Thanks,
Guenter
