[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <928ae07a-8c4a-05fc-16af-48fb6e9c341d@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 19:32:37 +1200
From: Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@...il.com>
To: zhong jiang <zhongjiang@...wei.com>,
Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>
Cc: "jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
"fthain@...egraphics.com.au" <fthain@...egraphics.com.au>,
"andy.shevchenko@...il.com" <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"john.garry@...wei.com" <john.garry@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi:NCR5380: remove same check condition in
NCR5380_select
Am 02.08.2018 um 15:45 schrieb zhong jiang:
> On 2018/8/2 11:26, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On Thu, 2018-08-02 at 11:10 +0800, zhong jiang wrote:
>>> The same check condition is redundant, so remove one of them.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: zhong jiang <zhongjiang@...wei.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c | 3 +--
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c b/drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c
>>> index 90ea0f5..2ecaf3f 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c
>>> @@ -999,8 +999,7 @@ static struct scsi_cmnd *NCR5380_select(struct Scsi_Host *instance,
>>>
>>> /* Check for lost arbitration */
>>> if ((NCR5380_read(INITIATOR_COMMAND_REG) & ICR_ARBITRATION_LOST) ||
>>> - (NCR5380_read(CURRENT_SCSI_DATA_REG) & hostdata->id_higher_mask) ||
>>> - (NCR5380_read(INITIATOR_COMMAND_REG) & ICR_ARBITRATION_LOST)) {
>>> + (NCR5380_read(CURRENT_SCSI_DATA_REG) & hostdata->id_higher_mask)) {
>>> NCR5380_write(MODE_REG, MR_BASE);
>>> dsprintk(NDEBUG_ARBITRATION, instance, "lost arbitration, deasserting MR_ARBITRATE\n");
>>> spin_lock_irq(&hostdata->lock);
>> Has this patch been tested?
> I check the issue by doubletest.cocci. Just review the code by myself. Maybe I miss something else.
> please tell let me know if you any objection.
This redundant load of the ICR has been in the driver code for a long
time. There's a small chance it is intentional, so at least minimal
testing might be in order.
Finn - does the ICR_ARBITRATION_LOST bit have to be cleared by a write
to the mode register? In that case, the first load would have been
redundant and can be omitted without changing driver behaviour?
Cheers,
Michael
>
> Thanks
> zhong jiang
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Bart.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists