On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 02:21:36PM +0200, Joerg Albert wrote:
> On 09/19/2009 02:02 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:25:31 +0200
> > Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> This patch ports some code from the vendor driver, which is
> >> supposed to upload the right calibration values for the
> >> chosen frequency.
> >>
> >> In theory, this should give a better range and throughput
> >> for all users with the open, or one-stage firmware.
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> + for (i = 0; i < 76; i++) {
> >> + u32 phy_data;
> >> + u8 tmp;
> >> +
> >> + if (i < 25) {
> >> + tmp = ar9170_interpolate_val(i, &pwrs[0][0],
> >> + &vpds[0][0]);
> >> + } else {
> >> + tmp = ar9170_interpolate_val(i - 12,
> >> + &pwrs[1][0],
> >> + &vpds[1][0]);
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + phy_data |= tmp << ((i & 3) << 3);
> >
> > Clearly buggy and the compiler warns. The value of phy_data is unknown
> > here.
> >
> > How did this get all the way into mainline?
>
> Strangely it compiles without any warning for me with the latest linux-wireless:
That is strange -- no warning here (F-11) either...
Christian, care to propose a patch? Or maybe just something like this?
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ar9170/phy.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ar9170/phy.c
index b3e5cf3..49c10cb 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ar9170/phy.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ar9170/phy.c
@@ -1220,7 +1220,7 @@ static int ar9170_set_freq_cal_data(struct ar9170 *ar,
&vpds[1][0]);
}
- phy_data |= tmp << ((i & 3) << 3);
+ phy_data = tmp << ((i & 3) << 3);
if ((i & 3) == 3) {
ar9170_regwrite(0x1c6280 + chain * 0x1000 +
(i & ~3), phy_data);
John
--
John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you
linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx might be all we have. Be ready.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
