* [PATCH] icom: bit and/or confusion?
@ 2009-08-14 12:02 Roel Kluin
2009-08-14 15:50 ` Greg KH
2009-08-14 17:10 ` Greg KH
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Roel Kluin @ 2009-08-14 12:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton, gregkh, LKML
Previously, if any bit other than CMD_SND_BREAK was set, CMD_SND_BREAK
was not unset.
Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@gmail.com>
---
I think meant was: If CMD_SND_BREAK is set, unset it. Correct?
// vi drivers/serial/icom.h +137
#define CMD_SND_BREAK 0x04
diff --git a/drivers/serial/icom.c b/drivers/serial/icom.c
index cd1b6a4..060f4e3 100644
--- a/drivers/serial/icom.c
+++ b/drivers/serial/icom.c
@@ -617,7 +617,7 @@ static void shutdown(struct icom_port *icom_port)
* disable break condition
*/
cmdReg = readb(&icom_port->dram->CmdReg);
- if ((cmdReg | CMD_SND_BREAK) == CMD_SND_BREAK) {
+ if (cmdReg & CMD_SND_BREAK) {
writeb(cmdReg & ~CMD_SND_BREAK, &icom_port->dram->CmdReg);
}
}
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] icom: bit and/or confusion?
2009-08-14 12:02 [PATCH] icom: bit and/or confusion? Roel Kluin
@ 2009-08-14 15:50 ` Greg KH
2009-08-14 17:10 ` Greg KH
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Greg KH @ 2009-08-14 15:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roel Kluin; +Cc: Andrew Morton, LKML
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 02:02:34PM +0200, Roel Kluin wrote:
> Previously, if any bit other than CMD_SND_BREAK was set, CMD_SND_BREAK
> was not unset.
>
> Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@gmail.com>
> ---
> I think meant was: If CMD_SND_BREAK is set, unset it. Correct?
>
> // vi drivers/serial/icom.h +137
> #define CMD_SND_BREAK 0x04
>
> diff --git a/drivers/serial/icom.c b/drivers/serial/icom.c
> index cd1b6a4..060f4e3 100644
> --- a/drivers/serial/icom.c
> +++ b/drivers/serial/icom.c
> @@ -617,7 +617,7 @@ static void shutdown(struct icom_port *icom_port)
> * disable break condition
> */
> cmdReg = readb(&icom_port->dram->CmdReg);
> - if ((cmdReg | CMD_SND_BREAK) == CMD_SND_BREAK) {
> + if (cmdReg & CMD_SND_BREAK) {
This change is the exact same thing, right? How is the original
incorrect here?
thanks,
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] icom: bit and/or confusion?
2009-08-14 12:02 [PATCH] icom: bit and/or confusion? Roel Kluin
2009-08-14 15:50 ` Greg KH
@ 2009-08-14 17:10 ` Greg KH
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Greg KH @ 2009-08-14 17:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roel Kluin; +Cc: Andrew Morton, LKML
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 02:02:34PM +0200, Roel Kluin wrote:
> Previously, if any bit other than CMD_SND_BREAK was set, CMD_SND_BREAK
> was not unset.
>
> Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@gmail.com>
> ---
> I think meant was: If CMD_SND_BREAK is set, unset it. Correct?
>
> // vi drivers/serial/icom.h +137
> #define CMD_SND_BREAK 0x04
>
> diff --git a/drivers/serial/icom.c b/drivers/serial/icom.c
> index cd1b6a4..060f4e3 100644
> --- a/drivers/serial/icom.c
> +++ b/drivers/serial/icom.c
> @@ -617,7 +617,7 @@ static void shutdown(struct icom_port *icom_port)
> * disable break condition
> */
> cmdReg = readb(&icom_port->dram->CmdReg);
> - if ((cmdReg | CMD_SND_BREAK) == CMD_SND_BREAK) {
> + if (cmdReg & CMD_SND_BREAK) {
Nevermind, Alan rightly pointed out that I was completly wrong, I'll go
queue this up.
thanks,
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-08-14 17:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-08-14 12:02 [PATCH] icom: bit and/or confusion? Roel Kluin
2009-08-14 15:50 ` Greg KH
2009-08-14 17:10 ` Greg KH
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox