On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 05:59:14PM +0100, Florian Vaussard wrote:
> Using regmap_update_bits(..., mask, 1) with 'mask' following (1 << k)
> and k greater than 0 is wrong. Indeed, _regmap_update_bits will perform
> (mask & 1), which results in 0 if LSB of mask is 0. Thus the call
>
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 05:59:14PM +0100, Florian Vaussard wrote:
> Using regmap_update_bits(..., mask, 1) with 'mask' following (1 << k)
> and k greater than 0 is wrong. Indeed, _regmap_update_bits will perform
> (mask & 1), which results in 0 if LSB of mask is 0. Thus the call
>
Using regmap_update_bits(..., mask, 1) with 'mask' following (1 << k)
and k greater than 0 is wrong. Indeed, _regmap_update_bits will perform
(mask & 1), which results in 0 if LSB of mask is 0. Thus the call
regmap_update_bits(..., mask, 1) is in reality equivalent to
regmap_update_bits(..., mask,
Using regmap_update_bits(..., mask, 1) with 'mask' following (1 << k)
and k greater than 0 is wrong. Indeed, _regmap_update_bits will perform
(mask & 1), which results in 0 if LSB of mask is 0. Thus the call
regmap_update_bits(..., mask, 1) is in reality equivalent to
regmap_update_bits(..., mask,
4 matches
Mail list logo