On 17 August 2016 at 13:34, Rafał Miłecki <zaj...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8 July 2016 at 01:08, Jon Mason <jon.ma...@broadcom.com> wrote: >> mode = (bgmac_read(bgmac, BGMAC_DEV_STATUS) & BGMAC_DS_MM_MASK) >> >> BGMAC_DS_MM_SHIFT; >> - if (ci->id != BCMA_CHIP_ID_BCM47162 || mode != 0) >> + if (bgmac->feature_flags & BGMAC_FEAT_CLKCTLST || mode != 0) >> bgmac_set(bgmac, BCMA_CLKCTLST, BCMA_CLKCTLST_FORCEHT); >> - if (ci->id == BCMA_CHIP_ID_BCM47162 && mode == 2) >> + if (bgmac->feature_flags & BGMAC_FEAT_CLKCTLST && mode == 2) >> bcma_chipco_chipctl_maskset(&bgmac->core->bus->drv_cc, 1, ~0, >> BGMAC_CHIPCTL_1_RXC_DLL_BYPASS); > > Jon, it looks to me you translated two following conditions: > ci->id != BCMA_CHIP_ID_BCM47162 > and > ci->id == BCMA_CHIP_ID_BCM47162 > into the same flag check: > bgmac->feature_flags & BGMAC_FEAT_CLKCTLST > > I don't think it's intentional, is it? Do you have a moment to fix this?
Ping -- Rafał
