From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx3.wp.pl (mx3.wp.pl [212.77.101.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 565B81CDFAE for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2025 09:02:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=212.77.101.10 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1735894945; cv=none; b=Gwan9uecGs6FT0YaT4P7iApu2FrN0iXc4vYEF+vpEZqkh5yE14peFUCoekfc2BFxS8BY2sKbZRiaA+rl0/9yx2SW8627DCmW3enrnmVAmb+kfHq+ZAIgdrrFHs4Hu8XTwsX2nC+6sDwPxMuRBH6FOQGaWx9w8Fijdq+Gmsbb7a4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1735894945; c=relaxed/simple; bh=CtpIcZ+uMgp832pH13wtr03ahZTx/KGoTuQTpC1vyBw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=OXQszwfGYvib3a2kj/s7nAmXvk0/NPRPOR1+6BdLc63jKSsX+3/3gC/BGX1wJ23djofy1UkTP4WBN7YwSMgGwl0+RcUNycFMTNbyEgDStHzorh6CPk48iWN3EVauy0OUPDH/pccWPG5i2T0Bnyip39+41PE/P23ULrXlqM8patA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=wp.pl; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=wp.pl; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=wp.pl header.i=@wp.pl header.b=J9ozDVkk; arc=none smtp.client-ip=212.77.101.10 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=wp.pl Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=wp.pl Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=wp.pl header.i=@wp.pl header.b="J9ozDVkk" Received: (wp-smtpd smtp.wp.pl 9744 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2025 09:55:41 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wp.pl; s=20241105; t=1735894541; bh=kR8u14G55mBiCvnHB6XuasmXPZ+aNP3XsvXhAil8rPw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject; b=J9ozDVkk4KHNttDggHRV9979z02xHORMkpWeqz1XVdTzQUXm1d2HScRCKev0zr01I Z1wGCkYilM9StMyOCkGElIDYrG1MfK4qgWtGqFqrs6tUNScd7lD+7cBTj1B8yYPQMG DQc+RlcVFTNZIIMzKw3dIdkzGjP1kvPVGii7vhTy5pVXbRVL93FA9O/bw2aZqGGJE4 JpytIgQ+VIEpSH3GNfzAUyApabsOW4vtngbW0oPBWCM8U1ClLr5wQoVpoOyL3+mP74 AfZYw9WBKCWVfJ5GDsaF1tQ4EDqvxVxLoUIQF/lPc90Q7a0Qz6M9JtpwMFcCCjkekd O1Sc5V1k7et6Q== Received: from 89-64-0-140.dynamic.chello.pl (HELO localhost) (stf_xl@wp.pl@[89.64.0.140]) (envelope-sender ) by smtp.wp.pl (WP-SMTPD) with ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted SMTP for ; 3 Jan 2025 09:55:41 +0100 Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2025 09:55:40 +0100 From: Stanislaw Gruszka To: Ariel Otilibili Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Kalle Valo , Tomislav =?utf-8?Q?Po=C5=BEega?= , Daniel Golle Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] rt2x00: Remove unusued value Message-ID: <20250103085540.GA94204@wp.pl> References: <20241221124445.1094460-1-ariel.otilibili-anieli@eurecom.fr> <20241221124445.1094460-2-ariel.otilibili-anieli@eurecom.fr> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20241221124445.1094460-2-ariel.otilibili-anieli@eurecom.fr> X-WP-MailID: cc7567f25501454dd1d5e2b154d29223 X-WP-AV: skaner antywirusowy Poczty Wirtualnej Polski X-WP-SPAM: NO 0000000 [kQMk] On Sat, Dec 21, 2024 at 01:39:32PM +0100, Ariel Otilibili wrote: > Coverity-ID: 1525307 > Signed-off-by: Ariel Otilibili > --- > 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 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 >