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.carpen...@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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
