On 04/18/2018 05:24 PM, Colin Ian King wrote:
> Oops, shall I re-send?
There is no need to, thanks.
On 18/04/18 16:23, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
> On 04/18/2018 05:20 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
>> On 04/18/2018 05:06 PM, Colin King wrote:
>>> From: Colin Ian King
>>>
>>> The value from a readl is being masked with ITE_REG_CIOCAN_MASK however
>>> this is not being used and cfg is being re-assi
On 04/18/2018 05:20 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
> On 04/18/2018 05:06 PM, Colin King wrote:
>> From: Colin Ian King
>>
>> The value from a readl is being masked with ITE_REG_CIOCAN_MASK however
>> this is not being used and cfg is being re-assigned. I believe the
>> assignment operator should a
On 04/18/2018 05:06 PM, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King
>
> The value from a readl is being masked with ITE_REG_CIOCAN_MASK however
> this is not being used and cfg is being re-assigned. I believe the
> assignment operator should actually be instead the |= operator.
>
> Detected by Cov
From: Colin Ian King
The value from a readl is being masked with ITE_REG_CIOCAN_MASK however
this is not being used and cfg is being re-assigned. I believe the
assignment operator should actually be instead the |= operator.
Detected by CoverityScan, CID#1467987 ("Unused value")
Signed-off-by:
