On 06.04.2012 14:43, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
Re-define XHCI_LEGACY_DISABLE_SMI and used it in right way. All SMI enable bits will be cleared to zero and flag bits 29:31 are also cleared to zero. Other bits should be presvered as Table 146.
Signed-off-by: Alex He<alex.he@xxxxxxx> --- drivers/usb/host/pci-quirks.c | 10 +++++++--- drivers/usb/host/xhci-ext-caps.h | 5 +++-- 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/pci-quirks.c b/drivers/usb/host/pci-quirks.c index 7732d69..5da792c 100644 --- a/drivers/usb/host/pci-quirks.c +++ b/drivers/usb/host/pci-quirks.c @@ -825,9 +825,13 @@ static void __devinit quirk_usb_handoff_xhci(struct pci_dev *pdev) } } - /* Disable any BIOS SMIs */ - writel(XHCI_LEGACY_DISABLE_SMI, - base + ext_cap_offset + XHCI_LEGACY_CONTROL_OFFSET); + val = readl(base + ext_cap_offset + XHCI_LEGACY_CONTROL_OFFSET); + /* Mask off (turn off) any enabled SMIs */ + val&= XHCI_LEGACY_DISABLE_SMI,
You meant ';' here, not ','? The end result should be the same though...
Oh, yes. I am speechless for this mistake. I am so sorry and will resend it.
So you don't compile or test your bug fix patches before you send them? That really lowers the amount of trust I have in your patches. Please compile and test all patches in the future, even if they seem trivial.
Neither compilation nor test should have detected this mistake. As I said, whether you're using ';' or ',' in C, the end result is the same.
When the statements they separate are mere assignmentts, I should have added (as was in this case).
Sarah
WBR, Sergei -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
