[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <539EC21E.8030909@ge.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:08:30 +0100
From: Martyn Welch <martyn.welch@...com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
CC: nick <nickkrause@...patico.ca>, <manohar.vanga@...il.com>,
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: PATCH[[vme/bridges/vme_ca91cx42.c:1382: Bad if test Bug Fix]
On 16/06/14 10:56, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:47:25AM +0100, Martyn Welch wrote:
>> Nick,
>>
>> Sorry for the delay in responding.
>>
>> I'm staring at the manual for the ca91c142 and the relevant bits in
>> the VSIx_CTL registers definitely need to be set to 0 for A16,
>> likewise with the LM_CTL register. The pattern (3<<16) would enable
>> one of the "reserved" address spaces.
>>
>
> Nick emailed me privately that this was a static checker warning. These
> warnings are often false positives... But I'm worried about the test:
>
> if ((ctl & CA91CX42_VSI_CTL_VAS_M) == CA91CX42_VSI_CTL_VAS_A16)
> *aspace = VME_A16;
>
> That could be true when we didn't intend it.
>
If I'm not mistaken, CA91CX42_VSI_CTL_VAS_A16 is currently defined as 0.
So:
if ((ctl & (7<<16) == 0)
*aspace = VME_A16;
Which looks right to me, it's checking to see if the relevant bits in
the register are all zero, am I missing something obvious?
Martyn
--
Martyn Welch (Lead Software Engineer) | Registered in England and Wales
GE Intelligent Platforms | (3828642) at 100 Barbirolli Square
T +44(0)1327322748 | Manchester, M2 3AB
E martyn.welch@...com | VAT:GB 927559189
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists