Hi,
On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 03:39, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>
> > From: Andy Shevchenko
> > Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 12:06:11 +0300
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:00 AM Simon Glass wrote:
> > >
> > > At present if reading a BAR returns 0x (e.g. the device is not
> > > present) then the value
> From: Andy Shevchenko
> Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 12:06:11 +0300
>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:00 AM Simon Glass wrote:
> >
> > At present if reading a BAR returns 0x (e.g. the device is not
> > present) then the value is masked and a different value is returned.
> > This makes it harder
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:00 AM Simon Glass wrote:
>
> At present if reading a BAR returns 0x (e.g. the device is not
> present) then the value is masked and a different value is returned.
> This makes it harder to detect the problem when debugging.
If you insisting on the code, you may
At present if reading a BAR returns 0x (e.g. the device is not
present) then the value is masked and a different value is returned.
This makes it harder to detect the problem when debugging.
Update the function to avoid masking in this case.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass
Reviewed-by: Bin
4 matches
Mail list logo