Hi Chris, Le 09/12/2010 07:11, Chris Moore a écrit : > Hi, > > Le 07/12/2010 18:39, Albert ARIBAUD a écrit : >> Le 07/12/2010 18:10, Prafulla Wadaskar a écrit : >> >>>>> + val&= ~MFP_AF_MASK; >>>> Do we need to do this& here? For val is only 0 here... >>> This can be removed. >> OTOH, with the&, this line makes no assumption about val, and thus will >> work regardless of it. If the& is removed, and if later val is set to >> non-zero before reaching this instruction, it will cause a bug. >> >> IOW, the& makes the statement more resilient. >> > > If val really is zero then the result will always be zero :( > Simply removing the & would give a different result. > It would be better to remove the whole bloody line ;-) > > I haven't followed this thread but I suspect the original code was wrong.
Good point as to the removal if the removal must be done :) I still think that the original is functionally more correct *if we are not sure that val will always be zero. I'll have a second look tonight. > Cheers, > Chris Amicalement, -- Albert. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot