From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Carpenter Subject: [bug report] scsi: ufs-qcom: dump additional testbus registers Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 10:58:59 +0300 Message-ID: <20170214075859.GA2550@mwanda> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:24750 "EHLO aserp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751637AbdBNH7P (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Feb 2017 02:59:15 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: venkatg@codeaurora.org Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Hello Venkat Gopalakrishnan, The patch 9c46b8676271: "scsi: ufs-qcom: dump additional testbus registers" from Feb 3, 2017, leads to the following static checker warning: drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c:1531 ufs_qcom_testbus_cfg_is_ok() warn: impossible condition '(host->testbus.select_minor > 255) => (0-255 > 255)' drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c 1517 static bool ufs_qcom_testbus_cfg_is_ok(struct ufs_qcom_host *host) 1518 { 1519 if (host->testbus.select_major >= TSTBUS_MAX) { 1520 dev_err(host->hba->dev, 1521 "%s: UFS_CFG1[TEST_BUS_SEL} may not equal 0x%05X\n", 1522 __func__, host->testbus.select_major); 1523 return false; 1524 } 1525 1526 /* 1527 * Not performing check for each individual select_major 1528 * mappings of select_minor, since there is no harm in 1529 * configuring a non-existent select_minor 1530 */ 1531 if (host->testbus.select_minor > 0xFF) { ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It might make sense to keep this check. I don't know. But it's confusing that 0xFF is a magic number. Better to make it a define. 1532 dev_err(host->hba->dev, 1533 "%s: 0x%05X is not a legal testbus option\n", 1534 __func__, host->testbus.select_minor); 1535 return false; 1536 } 1537 1538 return true; 1539 } regards, dan carpenter