On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 12:47:15PM -0600, David Mosberger-Tang wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-03-19 at 16:09 +0000, Ajay.Kathat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > On 19/03/21 8:17 pm, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > If the loop fails, the "while(trials--) {" loop will exit with "trials"
> > > set to -1. The test for that expects it to end with "trials" set to 0
> > > so the warning message will not be printed.
> > >
> > > Fix this by changing from a post-op to a pre-op. This does mean that
> > > we only make 99 attempts instead of 100 but that's okay.
> > >
> > > Fixes: f135a1571a05 ("wilc1000: Support chip sleep over SPI")
> > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Thanks Dan.
>
> Good catch, but wouldn't it be better to fix the time-out check
> condition instead? Something a long the lines of:
>
> --- drivers/net/wireless/microchip/wilc1000/wlan.c~ 2021-03-29 12:44:52.066039259 -0600
> +++ drivers/net/wireless/microchip/wilc1000/wlan.c 2021-03-29 12:40:29.176365116 -0600
> @@ -457,7 +457,7 @@
> u32 wakeup_reg, wakeup_bit;
> u32 to_host_from_fw_reg, to_host_from_fw_bit;
> u32 from_host_to_fw_reg, from_host_to_fw_bit;
> - u32 trials = 100;
> + int trials = 100;
> int ret;
>
> if (wilc->io_type == WILC_HIF_SDIO) {
> @@ -483,7 +483,7 @@
> if ((reg & to_host_from_fw_bit) == 0)
> break;
> }
> - if (!trials)
> + if (trials < 0)
> pr_warn("FW not responding\n");
>
> /* Clear bit 1 */
>
>
> This way, the loop could actually get executed the number of times
> indicated by the initialization of "trial" before issuing a warning
> message.
Those numbers are just made up... It doesn't matter either way.
regards,
dan carpenter
