Hi Kalle,
Quoting Kalle Valo <kv...@qca.qualcomm.com>:
"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.
Let me correct that and I'll send the patch again.
Thanks!
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva
