On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab > - /* Use both frq_lock and signal to generate the result */ > - signal = signal || ((signal & 0x07) << 12); > + /* Signal level is 3 bits only */ > + > + signal = ((1 << 12) - 1) | ((signal & 0x07) << 12); Are you sure this is correct? It's entirely possible the original code used a logical or because the signal level isn't valid unless there is a lock. The author may have been intending to say: if (signal != 0) /* There is a lock, so set the signal level */ signal = (signal & 0x07) << 12; else signal = 0 /* Leave signal level at zero since there is no lock */ I agree that the way the original code was written is confusing, but it may actually be correct. Devin -- Devin J. Heitmueller - Kernel Labs http://www.kernellabs.com -- 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
