Dan Carpenter writes: > On Sat, Jun 09, 2012 at 10:47:32AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > The test here is never true because '&' was used instead of '|'. It was > > the same as: > > > > if (status & ((1<<16) & (1<<17)) ... > > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > I don't have this hardware and this one really should be tested or > > checked by someone who knows the spec. It could be that the intent was > > to do: > > > > if ((status & SOLO_IIC_STATE_TRNS) && > > (status & SOLO_IIC_STATE_SIG_ERR) || ... > > > > It should be this, yes? For other similar mistakes it was meant to > be this way. Yes, looks ok. Regards, Ralph -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
