* [patch RFC] [media] staging: solo6x10: fix | vs &
@ 2012-06-09 7:47 Dan Carpenter
2012-06-10 20:58 ` Dan Carpenter
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2012-06-09 7:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Collins
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab, Greg Kroah-Hartman, linux-media, devel,
kernel-janitors
The test here is never true because '&' was used instead of '|'. It was
the same as:
if (status & ((1<<16) & (1<<17)) ...
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
---
I don't have this hardware and this one really should be tested or
checked by someone who knows the spec. It could be that the intent was
to do:
if ((status & SOLO_IIC_STATE_TRNS) &&
(status & SOLO_IIC_STATE_SIG_ERR) || ...
diff --git a/drivers/staging/media/solo6x10/i2c.c b/drivers/staging/media/solo6x10/i2c.c
index ef95a50..398070a 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/media/solo6x10/i2c.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/media/solo6x10/i2c.c
@@ -175,7 +175,7 @@ int solo_i2c_isr(struct solo_dev *solo_dev)
solo_reg_write(solo_dev, SOLO_IRQ_STAT, SOLO_IRQ_IIC);
- if (status & (SOLO_IIC_STATE_TRNS & SOLO_IIC_STATE_SIG_ERR) ||
+ if (status & (SOLO_IIC_STATE_TRNS | SOLO_IIC_STATE_SIG_ERR) ||
solo_dev->i2c_id < 0) {
solo_i2c_stop(solo_dev);
return -ENXIO;
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch RFC] [media] staging: solo6x10: fix | vs &
2012-06-09 7:47 [patch RFC] [media] staging: solo6x10: fix | vs & Dan Carpenter
@ 2012-06-10 20:58 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-06-15 16:55 ` Ralph Metzler
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2012-06-10 20:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Collins
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab, Greg Kroah-Hartman, linux-media, devel,
kernel-janitors
On Sat, Jun 09, 2012 at 10:47:32AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> The test here is never true because '&' was used instead of '|'. It was
> the same as:
>
> if (status & ((1<<16) & (1<<17)) ...
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> ---
> I don't have this hardware and this one really should be tested or
> checked by someone who knows the spec. It could be that the intent was
> to do:
>
> if ((status & SOLO_IIC_STATE_TRNS) &&
> (status & SOLO_IIC_STATE_SIG_ERR) || ...
>
It should be this, yes? For other similar mistakes it was meant to
be this way.
regards,
dan carpenter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch RFC] [media] staging: solo6x10: fix | vs &
2012-06-10 20:58 ` Dan Carpenter
@ 2012-06-15 16:55 ` Ralph Metzler
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Ralph Metzler @ 2012-06-15 16:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dan Carpenter
Cc: Ben Collins, Mauro Carvalho Chehab, Greg Kroah-Hartman,
linux-media, devel, kernel-janitors
Dan Carpenter writes:
> On Sat, Jun 09, 2012 at 10:47:32AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > The test here is never true because '&' was used instead of '|'. It was
> > the same as:
> >
> > if (status & ((1<<16) & (1<<17)) ...
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> > ---
> > I don't have this hardware and this one really should be tested or
> > checked by someone who knows the spec. It could be that the intent was
> > to do:
> >
> > if ((status & SOLO_IIC_STATE_TRNS) &&
> > (status & SOLO_IIC_STATE_SIG_ERR) || ...
> >
>
> It should be this, yes? For other similar mistakes it was meant to
> be this way.
Yes, looks ok.
Regards,
Ralph
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-06-15 16:55 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-06-09 7:47 [patch RFC] [media] staging: solo6x10: fix | vs & Dan Carpenter
2012-06-10 20:58 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-06-15 16:55 ` Ralph Metzler
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox