On Sun, 2024-04-28 at 00:03 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 4/27/24 21:31, Frank Crawford wrote: ... > > In fact, I think in this case that entire expression can be > > simplified > > to just "!opened", as we only want to perform the exit code when > > the > > entry code was given, and it is only set to true in those cases. > > > > Not really, because it is at least theoretically possible that it was > necessary to enter configuration mode to determine that the chip > is one of the broken ones. I'll leave that up to you to make the > call, > though. I guess it is theoretically possible, if some other driver has done something, but as well I guess this patch is different in that it doesn't do the second chip first, and so is still different. However, in the only chipset we have been able to reliably lock up lately we haven't been able to read the chipID even after trying to enter configuration mode, when we have locked up the chip, so I don't think this issue will actually happen in practice. I will still try to get hold of the configuration documentation, to see any additional notes from the vendor. I don't expect that soon though. > > Guenter Regards Frank
