[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090814165852.7338461e.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:58:52 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: roel.kluin@...il.com, romieu@...zoreil.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] WAN: bit and/or confusion
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:41:23 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:36:44 -0700
>
> > On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:51:46 +0200
> > Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> >> @@ -663,9 +663,9 @@ static inline void dscc4_rx_skb(struct dscc4_dev_priv *dpriv,
> >> } else {
> >> if (skb->data[pkt_len] & FrameRdo)
> >> dev->stats.rx_fifo_errors++;
> >> - else if (!(skb->data[pkt_len] | ~FrameCrc))
> >> + else if (!(skb->data[pkt_len] & ~FrameCrc))
> >> dev->stats.rx_crc_errors++;
> >
> > that's
> >
> > if (!(x & 0xffffffdf))
> >
> > which seems peculiar. Should it have been
> >
> > else if (skb->data[pkt_len] & FrameCrc)
> >
> > or
> >
> > else if (!(skb->data[pkt_len] & FrameCrc))
>
> Indeed, I can't tell which variant would be correct.
>
> I'm reverting until someone with a datasheet for this chip speaks up
> :-)
http://www.datasheet.in/download.php?id=39415
Page 383 and 384 say that bit 5 (CRC) is zero if the rx frame contained
errors.
So we need
else if (!(skb->data[pkt_len] & FrameCrc))
> - else if (!(skb->data[pkt_len] | ~(FrameVfr | FrameRab)))
> + else if (!(skb->data[pkt_len] & ~(FrameVfr | FrameRab)))
vfr is "valid frame". 0 is invalid.
rab is "receive message aborted". The data sheet doesn't actually say
if the bit is active-high or active-low (grr).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists