On 06/22/18 12:57, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 03:54:22AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
On Fri, 2018-06-22 at 13:40 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 08:22:30PM +0200, Michael Straube wrote:
Fix checkpatch error 'do not use assignment in if condition'.
[]
diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ieee80211.c
b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ieee80211.c
index e55895632921..87a4ced41028 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ieee80211.c
+++ b/
@@ -1181,9 +1181,8 @@ void rtw_macaddr_cfg(struct device *dev, u8 *mac_addr)
(mac[3] == 0xff) && (mac[4] == 0xff) && (mac[5] == 0xff)) ||
((mac[0] == 0x00) && (mac[1] == 0x00) && (mac[2] == 0x00) &&
(mac[3] == 0x00) && (mac[4] == 0x00) && (mac[5] == 0x00))) {
Should also use is_broadcast_ether_addr and is_zero_ether_addr
- if (np &&
- (addr = of_get_property(np, "local-mac-address", &len)) &&
- len == ETH_ALEN) {
+ addr = of_get_property(np, "local-mac-address", &len);
+ if (np && addr && len == ETH_ALEN) {
You can remove the "np" check.
if (addr && len == ETH_ALEN) {
It looks more like the rewrite is incorrect
as np is tested before of_get_property
That's what I was worried about too, but if "np" is NULL then
of_get_property() just returns NULL so it's fine.
So it should be this?
if (((mac[0] == 0xff) && (mac[1] == 0xff) && (mac[2] == 0xff) &&
(mac[3] == 0xff) && (mac[4] == 0xff) && (mac[5] == 0xff)) ||
((mac[0] == 0x00) && (mac[1] == 0x00) && (mac[2] == 0x00) &&
(mac[3] == 0x00) && (mac[4] == 0x00) && (mac[5] == 0x00)) &&
(is_broadcast_ether_addr(mac) || is_zero_ether_addr(mac))) {
addr = of_get_property(np, "local-mac-address", &len);
if (addr && len == ETH_ALEN) {
memcpy(mac_addr, addr, ETH_ALEN);
} else {
mac[0] = 0x00;
...
}
}
If yes, I'm not sure how to proceed as these are the very first patches I send.
Should I send a v2 patch with both changes or just a v2 with "np" removed and
another one for adding 'is_broadcast_ether_addr' and 'is_zero_ether_addr'
checks?
Regards,
Michael
