netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] rt2x00: Remove unusued value

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250103085540.GA94204@wp.pl>
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2025 09:55:40 +0100
From: Stanislaw Gruszka <stf_xl@...pl>
To: Ariel Otilibili <ariel.otilibili-anieli@...ecom.fr>
Cc: linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>,
	Tomislav Požega <pozega.tomislav@...il.com>,
	Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] rt2x00: Remove unusued value

On Sat, Dec 21, 2024 at 01:39:32PM +0100, Ariel Otilibili wrote:
> Coverity-ID: 1525307
> Signed-off-by: Ariel Otilibili <ariel.otilibili-anieli@...ecom.fr>
> ---
>  drivers/net/wireless/ralink/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c | 6 ------
>  1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ralink/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ralink/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c
> index 60c2a12e9d5e..e5f553a1ea24 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ralink/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ralink/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c
> @@ -8882,13 +8882,10 @@ static void rt2800_rxiq_calibration(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev)
>  
>  	for (ch_idx = 0; ch_idx < 2; ch_idx = ch_idx + 1) {
>  		if (ch_idx == 0) {
> -			rfval = rfb0r1 & (~0x3);
>  			rfval = rfb0r1 | 0x1;

I wonder if intention here was different, for example:

 			rfval = rfb0r1 & (~0x3);
  			rfval = rfval | 0x1;

For me the patch looks ok - it does not change existing behaviour,
since rfval is overwritten by second line anyway.

Acked-by: Stanislaw Gruszka <stf_xl@...pl>

But Tomislav and Daniel, please check if this code is correct.

>  			rt2800_rfcsr_write_bank(rt2x00dev, 0, 1, rfval);
> -			rfval = rfb0r2 & (~0x33);
>  			rfval = rfb0r2 | 0x11;
>  			rt2800_rfcsr_write_bank(rt2x00dev, 0, 2, rfval);
> -			rfval = rfb0r42 & (~0x50);
>  			rfval = rfb0r42 | 0x10;
>  			rt2800_rfcsr_write_bank(rt2x00dev, 0, 42, rfval);
>  
> @@ -8901,13 +8898,10 @@ static void rt2800_rxiq_calibration(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev)
>  
>  			rt2800_bbp_dcoc_write(rt2x00dev, 1, 0x00);
>  		} else {
> -			rfval = rfb0r1 & (~0x3);
>  			rfval = rfb0r1 | 0x2;
>  			rt2800_rfcsr_write_bank(rt2x00dev, 0, 1, rfval);
> -			rfval = rfb0r2 & (~0x33);
>  			rfval = rfb0r2 | 0x22;
>  			rt2800_rfcsr_write_bank(rt2x00dev, 0, 2, rfval);
> -			rfval = rfb0r42 & (~0x50);
>  			rfval = rfb0r42 | 0x40;
>  			rt2800_rfcsr_write_bank(rt2x00dev, 0, 42, rfval);
>  
> -- 
> 2.47.1
>