"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsi...@embeddedor.com> writes: > The name of an array used by itself will always return the array's address. > So this test will always evaluate as true. > > Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1364903 > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <garsi...@embeddedor.com> > --- > drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c > b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c > index fb80ec8..5c3bc28 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c > @@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ bool ath9k_hw_nvram_read(struct ath_hw *ah, u32 off, u16 > *data) > > if (ah->eeprom_blob) > ret = ath9k_hw_nvram_read_firmware(ah->eeprom_blob, off, data); > - else if (pdata && !pdata->use_eeprom && pdata->eeprom_data) > + else if (pdata && !pdata->use_eeprom) > ret = ath9k_hw_nvram_read_pdata(pdata, off, data); > else > ret = common->bus_ops->eeprom_read(common, off, data);
The patch may very well be valid (didn't check yet) but the commit log is gibberish for me. -- Kalle Valo
