On 8/22/19 11:11 AM, Colin Ian King wrote:
On 22/08/2019 17:03, Larry Finger wrote:
On 8/22/19 8:35 AM, Colin King wrote:
From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
An earlier commit re-worked the setting of the bitmask and is now
assigning v with some bit flags rather than bitwise or-ing them
into v, consequently the earlier bit-settings of v are being lost.
Fix this by replacing an assignment with the bitwise or instead.
Addresses-Coverity: ("Unused value")
Fixes: 2be25cac8402 ("bcma: add constants for PCI and use them")
Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/bcma/driver_pci.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/bcma/driver_pci.c b/drivers/bcma/driver_pci.c
index f499a469e66d..d219ee947c07 100644
--- a/drivers/bcma/driver_pci.c
+++ b/drivers/bcma/driver_pci.c
@@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ static u16 bcma_pcie_mdio_read(struct bcma_drv_pci
*pc, u16 device, u8 address)
v |= (address << BCMA_CORE_PCI_MDIODATA_REGADDR_SHF_OLD);
}
- v = BCMA_CORE_PCI_MDIODATA_START;
+ v |= BCMA_CORE_PCI_MDIODATA_START;
v |= BCMA_CORE_PCI_MDIODATA_READ;
v |= BCMA_CORE_PCI_MDIODATA_TA;
I'm not sure the "Fixes" attribute is correct.
The changes for this section in commit 2be25cac8402 are
- v = (1 << 30); /* Start of Transaction */
- v |= (1 << 28); /* Write Transaction */
- v |= (1 << 17); /* Turnaround */
- v |= (0x1F << 18);
+ v = BCMA_CORE_PCI_MDIODATA_START;
+ v |= BCMA_CORE_PCI_MDIODATA_WRITE;
+ v |= (BCMA_CORE_PCI_MDIODATA_DEV_ADDR <<
+ BCMA_CORE_PCI_MDIODATA_DEVADDR_SHF);
+ v |= (BCMA_CORE_PCI_MDIODATA_BLK_ADDR <<
+ BCMA_CORE_PCI_MDIODATA_REGADDR_SHF);
+ v |= BCMA_CORE_PCI_MDIODATA_TA;
Because the code has done quite a bit of work on v just above this
section, I agree that this is likely an error, but that error happened
in an earlier commit. Thus 2be25cac8402 did not introduce the error,
merely copied it.
Ugh, this goes back further. I didn't spot that. I'm less confident of
what the correct settings should be now.
Has this change been tested?
Afraid not, I don't have the H/W.
I admit that I looked at this only because I found it hard to believe that the
collective wisdom of the list would have missed the usage of "=" instead of
"|=". At least that test was passed. :)
Larry
