Re: staging: pi433: Possible bug in rf69.c
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 07:38:41PM +0200, Marcus Wolf wrote: > Hi Greg, > > don't know, wether that's best option. What is? > With that procedure, it will be very hard, to integrate large patches, if > the owner of the patch isn't dealing with kernel source in his daily > business and thus isn't able to react on new releases within no time. > > I've seen the release of 4.15rc1 on Tuesday and already pulled the new head. > But I am busy with my customer (proprietary software for an really ancient > µC), so I won't be able to prepare my patches before weekend. > > The patches will touch almost every function in rf69.c, since they change > some basic concepts over there. Then send large patch series if you are doing lots of work, I can handle them easily, and you can easily rebase and update if not all of them apply. The "don't touch a file because I am going to be making future changes" is what has killed other open source projects[1]. There's a reason Linux has been doing so well :) thanks, greg k-h [1] Seriously, this is what has caused other open source operating systems to quickly loose developers and advances. ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: staging: pi433: Possible bug in rf69.c
Hi Greg, don't know, wether that's best option. With that procedure, it will be very hard, to integrate large patches, if the owner of the patch isn't dealing with kernel source in his daily business and thus isn't able to react on new releases within no time. I've seen the release of 4.15rc1 on Tuesday and already pulled the new head. But I am busy with my customer (proprietary software for an really ancient µC), so I won't be able to prepare my patches before weekend. The patches will touch almost every function in rf69.c, since they change some basic concepts over there. Cheers, Marcus Am 30.11.2017 um 19:12 schrieb Greg KH: On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 06:01:46PM +0100, Marcin Ciupak wrote: On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 01:51:10PM +0200, Marcus Wolf wrote: Hi Marcus, since 4.15-rc1 is out I would like to ask if you are going to provide your changes anytime soon? I would like to send a few patches as well and do not want to block your work. Just send patches, first one to my inbox always wins, don't wait for someone else :) greg k-h -- Smarthome-Wolf UG (haftungsbeschränkt) Helene-Lange-Weg 23 80637 München Amtsgericht München, HRB 223529 Umastzsteuer-ID: DE304719911 Geschäftsführer: Marcus Wolf ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: staging: pi433: Possible bug in rf69.c
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 06:01:46PM +0100, Marcin Ciupak wrote: > On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 01:51:10PM +0200, Marcus Wolf wrote: > Hi Marcus, > > since 4.15-rc1 is out I would like to ask if you are going to provide > your changes anytime soon? > > I would like to send a few patches as well and do not want to block your > work. Just send patches, first one to my inbox always wins, don't wait for someone else :) greg k-h ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: staging: pi433: Possible bug in rf69.c
On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 01:51:10PM +0200, Marcus Wolf wrote: Hi Marcus, since 4.15-rc1 is out I would like to ask if you are going to provide your changes anytime soon? I would like to send a few patches as well and do not want to block your work. Thanks, Marcin > Hi Greg, > > ok. > > I'll postpone all my work until then. Give me a hook, when I can start :-) > > Thanks, > > Marcus > > > Am 11.11.2017 um 13:49 schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman: > > On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 01:42:27PM +0200, Marcus Wolf wrote: > >> Hi Greg, > >> > >> that's fine. > >> > >> Is this the right URL: > >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging.git > > > > Yes. > > > >> Is there already an aprox. date, when 4.15rc1 will be out and > >> backintegration will be done? > > > > Should be 2 weeks from now. > > > > thanks, > > > > greg k-h > > ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: staging: pi433: Possible bug in rf69.c
On Fri, 2017-11-10 at 18:23 +0100, Marcus Wolf wrote:
> Hi everybody!
>
> Just comparing the master of Gregs statging of pi433 with my local SVN
> to review all changes, that were done the last monthes.
>
> I am not sure, but maybe we imported a bug in rf69.c lines 378 and
> following:
>
> Gregs repo:
> case automatic: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) &
> ~MASK_LNA_GAIN) & LNA_GAIN_AUTO) );
> case max:return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) &
> ~MASK_LNA_GAIN) & LNA_GAIN_MAX) );
> case maxMinus6: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) &
> ~MASK_LNA_GAIN) & LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_6) );
> case maxMinus12: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) &
> ~MASK_LNA_GAIN) & LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_12) );
> case maxMinus24: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) &
> ~MASK_LNA_GAIN) & LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_24) );
> case maxMinus36: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) &
> ~MASK_LNA_GAIN) & LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_36) );
> case maxMinus48: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) &
> ~MASK_LNA_GAIN) & LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_48) );
>
> my repo:
> case automatic: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) &
> ~MASK_LNA_GAIN) | LNA_GAIN_AUTO) );
> case max:return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) &
> ~MASK_LNA_GAIN) | LNA_GAIN_MAX) );
> case maxMinus6: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) &
> ~MASK_LNA_GAIN) | LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_6) );
> case maxMinus12: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) &
> ~MASK_LNA_GAIN) | LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_12) );
> case maxMinus24: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) &
> ~MASK_LNA_GAIN) | LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_24) );
> case maxMinus36: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) &
> ~MASK_LNA_GAIN) | LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_36) );
> case maxMinus48: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) &
> ~MASK_LNA_GAIN) | LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_48) );
>
> Up to my opinion, my (old) version is better then Gregs (new) version.
> If you agree, I'll prepare a patch, to revert the modification.
There seems to be a lot of enum/#define duplication in this driver.
For instance:
drivers/staging/pi433/rf69_registers.h
#define LNA_GAIN_AUTO 0x00 /* default */
#define LNA_GAIN_MAX 0x01
#define LNA_GA
IN_MAX_MINUS_6 0x02
#define LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_12
0x03
#define LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_24
0x04
#define LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_36 0x05
#d
efine LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_480x06
vs
drivers/staging/pi433/rf69_enum.h
enum lnaGain
{
automatic,
max,
maxMinus6,
maxMinus12,
maxM
inus24,
maxMinus36,
maxMinus48,
undefined
};
My suggestion would be to remove drivers/staging/pi433/rf69_enum.h
where possible and convert all these switch/case entries into
macros like
#define GAIN_CASE(type) \
case type: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA,\
(READ_REG(REG_LNA) & ~MASK_LNA_GAIN) |
(type));
so for example this switch becomes
switch (lnaGain) {
GAIN_CASE(LNA_GAIN_AUTO);
...
}
___
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: staging: pi433: Possible bug in rf69.c
Hi Joe,
thank you for your suggestion.
The enums are necessary for the (old fashioned) ioctl interface, too.
So the user space uses these enums in order to configure the driver.
If we want to completely remove rf69_enum.h, we need to find a solution
for that, too.
From the optics/readability, I like your idea with the Macro for the cases.
On the other hand, I have already prepared a patch, that uses setbit,
resetbit
and readmodifywrite inline fuctions instead of the macros WRITE_REG, ...
That was an idea of Walter Harms in order to increase readability and
reduce macros, because Walter prefers inline functions to macros.
As discussed with Greg, I will provide the patch, as soon as 4.15rc1 is out.
Maybe we should move the discussion to then, so you can have a look to that?
Cheers,
Marcus
Am 11.11.2017 um 18:02 schrieb Joe Perches:
On Fri, 2017-11-10 at 18:23 +0100, Marcus Wolf wrote:
Hi everybody!
Just comparing the master of Gregs statging of pi433 with my local SVN
to review all changes, that were done the last monthes.
I am not sure, but maybe we imported a bug in rf69.c lines 378 and
following:
Gregs repo:
case automatic: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) &
~MASK_LNA_GAIN) & LNA_GAIN_AUTO) );
case max:return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) &
~MASK_LNA_GAIN) & LNA_GAIN_MAX) );
case maxMinus6: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) &
~MASK_LNA_GAIN) & LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_6) );
case maxMinus12: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) &
~MASK_LNA_GAIN) & LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_12) );
case maxMinus24: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) &
~MASK_LNA_GAIN) & LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_24) );
case maxMinus36: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) &
~MASK_LNA_GAIN) & LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_36) );
case maxMinus48: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) &
~MASK_LNA_GAIN) & LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_48) );
my repo:
case automatic: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) &
~MASK_LNA_GAIN) | LNA_GAIN_AUTO) );
case max:return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) &
~MASK_LNA_GAIN) | LNA_GAIN_MAX) );
case maxMinus6: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) &
~MASK_LNA_GAIN) | LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_6) );
case maxMinus12: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) &
~MASK_LNA_GAIN) | LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_12) );
case maxMinus24: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) &
~MASK_LNA_GAIN) | LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_24) );
case maxMinus36: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) &
~MASK_LNA_GAIN) | LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_36) );
case maxMinus48: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) &
~MASK_LNA_GAIN) | LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_48) );
Up to my opinion, my (old) version is better then Gregs (new) version.
If you agree, I'll prepare a patch, to revert the modification.
There seems to be a lot of enum/#define duplication in this driver.
For instance:
drivers/staging/pi433/rf69_registers.h
#define LNA_GAIN_AUTO 0x00 /* default */
#define LNA_GAIN_MAX 0x01
#define LNA_GA
IN_MAX_MINUS_6 0x02
#define LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_12
0x03
#define LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_24
0x04
#define LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_36 0x05
#d
efine LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_480x06
vs
drivers/staging/pi433/rf69_enum.h
enum lnaGain
{
automatic,
max,
maxMinus6,
maxMinus12,
maxM
inus24,
maxMinus36,
maxMinus48,
undefined
};
My suggestion would be to remove drivers/staging/pi433/rf69_enum.h
where possible and convert all these switch/case entries into
macros like
#define GAIN_CASE(type) \
case type: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA,\
(READ_REG(REG_LNA) & ~MASK_LNA_GAIN) |
(type));
so for example this switch becomes
switch (lnaGain) {
GAIN_CASE(LNA_GAIN_AUTO);
...
}
___
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: staging: pi433: Possible bug in rf69.c
On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 01:51:10PM +0200, Marcus Wolf wrote: > Hi Greg, > > ok. > > I'll postpone all my work until then. Give me a hook, when I can start :-) I am not going to remember, sorry, I deal with over 1000 patches a week. Just watch kernel.org for when the new kernel is released. thanks, greg k-h ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: staging: pi433: Possible bug in rf69.c
On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 11:42:09AM +0200, Marcus Wolf wrote: > But I still need to know when to use staging and when to use linux-next. > I don't want to prepare patches for the wrong tree. Ah, I see now that the confusion is Al's patch. Al is a law unto himself so I don't know the answer. Normally the advice would be to work off staging-next. regards, dan carpenter ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: staging: pi433: Possible bug in rf69.c
Hi Greg, ok. I'll postpone all my work until then. Give me a hook, when I can start :-) Thanks, Marcus Am 11.11.2017 um 13:49 schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman: On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 01:42:27PM +0200, Marcus Wolf wrote: Hi Greg, that's fine. Is this the right URL: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging.git Yes. Is there already an aprox. date, when 4.15rc1 will be out and backintegration will be done? Should be 2 weeks from now. thanks, greg k-h ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: staging: pi433: Possible bug in rf69.c
On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 01:42:27PM +0200, Marcus Wolf wrote: > Hi Greg, > > that's fine. > > Is this the right URL: > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging.git Yes. > Is there already an aprox. date, when 4.15rc1 will be out and > backintegration will be done? Should be 2 weeks from now. thanks, greg k-h ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: staging: pi433: Possible bug in rf69.c
Hi Greg, that's fine. Is this the right URL: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging.git Is there already an aprox. date, when 4.15rc1 will be out and backintegration will be done? Thx, Marcus Am 11.11.2017 um 13:18 schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman: On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 11:42:09AM +0200, Marcus Wolf wrote: Hi Dan, thanks fot the link. I can't remeber, why and what I wanted to redo. Maybe there was a complaint about the format of the patch... In that patch, we also have the topic with the '>> 3', we were discussing a few days ago! I'd suggest, not to invest the history any more. I'm ok with preparing a new patch/new patches, so we can import the fixes. I also have several improvements for the rf69.c, I'd like to offer. But I still need to know when to use staging and when to use linux-next. I don't want to prepare patches for the wrong tree. I recommend waiting for 4.15-rc1 to come out, all of the different trees will be merged, and then you can just work off of the staging-next tree and I can take the patches. thanks, greg k-h ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: staging: pi433: Possible bug in rf69.c
On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 11:42:09AM +0200, Marcus Wolf wrote: > Hi Dan, > > thanks fot the link. I can't remeber, why and what I wanted to redo. Maybe > there was a complaint about the format of the patch... > > In that patch, we also have the topic with the '>> 3', we were discussing a > few days ago! > > I'd suggest, not to invest the history any more. I'm ok with preparing a new > patch/new patches, so we can import the fixes. > > I also have several improvements for the rf69.c, I'd like to offer. > > But I still need to know when to use staging and when to use linux-next. > I don't want to prepare patches for the wrong tree. I recommend waiting for 4.15-rc1 to come out, all of the different trees will be merged, and then you can just work off of the staging-next tree and I can take the patches. thanks, greg k-h ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: staging: pi433: Possible bug in rf69.c
Hi Dan, thanks fot the link. I can't remeber, why and what I wanted to redo. Maybe there was a complaint about the format of the patch... In that patch, we also have the topic with the '>> 3', we were discussing a few days ago! I'd suggest, not to invest the history any more. I'm ok with preparing a new patch/new patches, so we can import the fixes. I also have several improvements for the rf69.c, I'd like to offer. But I still need to know when to use staging and when to use linux-next. I don't want to prepare patches for the wrong tree. Cheers, Marcus Am 11.11.2017 um 10:45 schrieb Dan Carpenter: On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 08:55:30AM +0100, Marcus Wolf wrote: Hi Dan, I checked it on my local SVN. You are right. I submitted the code with '&'. Accodring to a check-in message on my SVN, there was a bugreport end of July and most probably a patch - either from me, you, Joseph Wright, Colin King or Julia Lawall, changing '&' to '|'. I guess the patch for some reason wasn't accepted, but fortunatley I introduced the change to my SVN. You sent the patch, but then talked about sending a new version so that's why it wasn't merged. Greg probably would have merged it as-is if it hadn't sounded like you were going to redo it. http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/pipermail/driverdev-devel/2017-July/108821.html regards, dan carpenter ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: staging: pi433: Possible bug in rf69.c
On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 08:55:30AM +0100, Marcus Wolf wrote: > Hi Dan, > > I checked it on my local SVN. You are right. I submitted the code with '&'. > Accodring to a check-in message on my SVN, there was a bugreport end of > July and most probably a patch - either from me, you, Joseph Wright, > Colin King or Julia Lawall, changing '&' to '|'. I guess the patch for > some reason wasn't accepted, but fortunatley I introduced the change to > my SVN. You sent the patch, but then talked about sending a new version so that's why it wasn't merged. Greg probably would have merged it as-is if it hadn't sounded like you were going to redo it. http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/pipermail/driverdev-devel/2017-July/108821.html regards, dan carpenter ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: staging: pi433: Possible bug in rf69.c
On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 08:55:30AM +0100, Marcus Wolf wrote: > Shortly befor I fell ill, you proposed me to use Gregs staging for my > further development. But Colin yesterday was working on a repo, called > linux-next. > > Can you (or anyone else) please tell me, when (or for which kind of > patches) to use the Gregs staging and wehen (or for which kind of > patches) to use the linux-next? Sorry for not being familiar with that > stuff! > linux-next is a collection of staging-next and slightly over 100 other devel trees. You can either using staging-next or linux-next, it's the same thing basically. regards, dan carpenter ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: staging: pi433: Possible bug in rf69.c
Hi Dan,
I checked it on my local SVN. You are right. I submitted the code with '&'.
Accodring to a check-in message on my SVN, there was a bugreport end of
July and most probably a patch - either from me, you, Joseph Wright,
Colin King or Julia Lawall, changing '&' to '|'. I guess the patch for
some reason wasn't accepted, but fortunatley I introduced the change to
my SVN.
So from my point of view, we need a change from '&' to '|'.
I could prepare such a patch, but I am still unsure, which repo to use.
Shortly befor I fell ill, you proposed me to use Gregs staging for my
further development. But Colin yesterday was working on a repo, called
linux-next.
Can you (or anyone else) please tell me, when (or for which kind of
patches) to use the Gregs staging and wehen (or for which kind of
patches) to use the linux-next? Sorry for not being familiar with that
stuff!
Thanks a lot,
Marcus
Am 10.11.2017 um 20:32 schrieb Dan Carpenter:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 06:23:32PM +0100, Marcus Wolf wrote:
>> Hi everybody!
>>
>> Just comparing the master of Gregs statging of pi433 with my local SVN
>> to review all changes, that were done the last monthes.
>>
>> I am not sure, but maybe we imported a bug in rf69.c lines 378 and
>> following:
>>
>> Gregs repo:
>> case automatic: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) &
>> ~MASK_LNA_GAIN) & LNA_GAIN_AUTO) );
>> my repo:
>> case automatic: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) &
>> ~MASK_LNA_GAIN) | LNA_GAIN_AUTO) );
>
> I edited the lines for clarity. The difference is that your repo does
> a bitwise OR "| LNA_GAIN_AUTO" and the kernel.org code does a bitwise
> "& LNA_GAIN_AUTO".
>
> The kernel repo hasn't changed since you sent us the driver in commit
> 874bcba65f9a ('staging: pi433: New driver'). I agree that & doesn't
> seem to make sense and I'm disapointed that it doesn't cause a Smatch
> warning.
>
> But LNA_GAIN_AUTO is zero so maybe | BIT(LNA_GAIN_AUTO) was intended
> instead of | LNA_GAIN_AUTO. I don't know... No one on this list knows
> the answer probably. :/
>
> regards,
> dan caprenter
>
___
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: staging: pi433: Possible bug in rf69.c
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 06:23:32PM +0100, Marcus Wolf wrote:
> Hi everybody!
>
> Just comparing the master of Gregs statging of pi433 with my local SVN
> to review all changes, that were done the last monthes.
>
> I am not sure, but maybe we imported a bug in rf69.c lines 378 and
> following:
>
> Gregs repo:
> case automatic: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) &
> ~MASK_LNA_GAIN) & LNA_GAIN_AUTO) );
> my repo:
> case automatic: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) &
> ~MASK_LNA_GAIN) | LNA_GAIN_AUTO) );
I edited the lines for clarity. The difference is that your repo does
a bitwise OR "| LNA_GAIN_AUTO" and the kernel.org code does a bitwise
"& LNA_GAIN_AUTO".
The kernel repo hasn't changed since you sent us the driver in commit
874bcba65f9a ('staging: pi433: New driver'). I agree that & doesn't
seem to make sense and I'm disapointed that it doesn't cause a Smatch
warning.
But LNA_GAIN_AUTO is zero so maybe | BIT(LNA_GAIN_AUTO) was intended
instead of | LNA_GAIN_AUTO. I don't know... No one on this list knows
the answer probably. :/
regards,
dan caprenter
___
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
staging: pi433: Possible bug in rf69.c
Hi everybody! Just comparing the master of Gregs statging of pi433 with my local SVN to review all changes, that were done the last monthes. I am not sure, but maybe we imported a bug in rf69.c lines 378 and following: Gregs repo: case automatic: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) & ~MASK_LNA_GAIN) & LNA_GAIN_AUTO) ); case max:return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) & ~MASK_LNA_GAIN) & LNA_GAIN_MAX) ); case maxMinus6: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) & ~MASK_LNA_GAIN) & LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_6) ); case maxMinus12: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) & ~MASK_LNA_GAIN) & LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_12) ); case maxMinus24: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) & ~MASK_LNA_GAIN) & LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_24) ); case maxMinus36: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) & ~MASK_LNA_GAIN) & LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_36) ); case maxMinus48: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) & ~MASK_LNA_GAIN) & LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_48) ); my repo: case automatic: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) & ~MASK_LNA_GAIN) | LNA_GAIN_AUTO) ); case max:return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) & ~MASK_LNA_GAIN) | LNA_GAIN_MAX) ); case maxMinus6: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) & ~MASK_LNA_GAIN) | LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_6) ); case maxMinus12: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) & ~MASK_LNA_GAIN) | LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_12) ); case maxMinus24: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) & ~MASK_LNA_GAIN) | LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_24) ); case maxMinus36: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) & ~MASK_LNA_GAIN) | LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_36) ); case maxMinus48: return WRITE_REG(REG_LNA, ( (READ_REG(REG_LNA) & ~MASK_LNA_GAIN) | LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_48) ); Up to my opinion, my (old) version is better then Gregs (new) version. If you agree, I'll prepare a patch, to revert the modification. Thanks, Marcus ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
