On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 04:33:57PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 12:08:49PM +0100, Colin King wrote:
> > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > The expression !(hw_cap & XGMAC_HWFEAT_RAVSEL) >> 10 is always zero, so
> > the masking operation is incorrect. Fix this by adding the missing
> > parentheses to correctly bind the negate operator on the entire expression.
> >
> > Addresses-Coverity: ("Operands don't affect result")
> > Fixes: c2b69474d63b ("net: stmmac: xgmac: Correct RAVSEL field interpretation")
> > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwxgmac2_dma.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwxgmac2_dma.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwxgmac2_dma.c
> > index 965cbe3e6f51..2e814aa64a5c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwxgmac2_dma.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwxgmac2_dma.c
> > @@ -369,7 +369,7 @@ static void dwxgmac2_get_hw_feature(void __iomem *ioaddr,
> > dma_cap->eee = (hw_cap & XGMAC_HWFEAT_EEESEL) >> 13;
> > dma_cap->atime_stamp = (hw_cap & XGMAC_HWFEAT_TSSEL) >> 12;
> > dma_cap->av = (hw_cap & XGMAC_HWFEAT_AVSEL) >> 11;
> > - dma_cap->av &= !(hw_cap & XGMAC_HWFEAT_RAVSEL) >> 10;
> > + dma_cap->av &= !((hw_cap & XGMAC_HWFEAT_RAVSEL) >> 10);
>
> There is no point to the shift at all.
Sorry I meant to say it should be a bitwise NOT, right? I was just
looking at some other dma_cap stuff that did this same thing... I can't
find it now...
regards,
dan carpenter
