From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Perches Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] aiptek: Fix probable mask then right shift defects Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 11:03:51 -0700 Message-ID: <1414433031.18896.2.camel@perches.com> References: <20141027144411.GA7594@dtor-ws> <1414432614.18896.1.camel@perches.com> <3320721.qubDk7TkeJ@dtor-glaptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <3320721.qubDk7TkeJ@dtor-glaptop> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Dmitry Torokhov Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-input@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2014-10-27 at 11:01 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Monday, October 27, 2014 10:56:54 AM Joe Perches wrote: > > On Mon, 2014-10-27 at 07:44 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:24:59PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > Precedence of & and >> is not the same and is not left to right. > > > > shift has higher precedence and should be done after the mask. > > > > > > Looking at the protocol description the current code is exactly right. > > > We want to "move" button bits first as in packet type 1 they are in a > > > different place than in other packets. > > > > > > I'll take a patch that adds parenthesis around shifts to make clear it > > > is intended. > > > > I think it's more sensible to do the shift first to a > > temporary then direct comparisons. [] > Unless you have the device I'd rather kept the changes (which are mostly > cosmetic in nature and do not fix any bugs) to a minimum. I don't have the device. I think you should do what you think appropriate. cheers, Joe