On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:29:15 +0100 Mark Pearson <devnull.port@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Karol Kozimor wrote: > > On 26-02-2008, at 21:42, Julia Lawall wrote: > >> if (invert) /* invert target value */ > >> - led_out = !led_out & 0x1; > >> + led_out = !(led_out & 0x1); > >> > >> if (!write_acpi_int(hotk->handle, ledname, led_out, NULL)) > >> printk(KERN_WARNING "Asus ACPI: LED (%s) write failed\n", > > > > > > IIRC we're just supposed to flip the last bit here, so the original code > > is correct. > > Best regards, > > > > Seems an odd way of doing: > > led_out ^= 0x01; It does. > It this due to some optimisation? Surely not ;) That code has been there for many years. I changed the patch to this: --- a/drivers/acpi/asus_acpi.c~drivers-acpi-asus_acpic-correct-use-of-and +++ a/drivers/acpi/asus_acpi.c @@ -610,7 +610,7 @@ write_led(const char __user * buffer, un (led_out) ? (hotk->status | ledmask) : (hotk->status & ~ledmask); if (invert) /* invert target value */ - led_out = !led_out & 0x1; + led_out = !led_out; if (!write_acpi_int(hotk->handle, ledname, led_out, NULL)) printk(KERN_WARNING "Asus ACPI: LED (%s) write failed\n", _ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
