Just in case someone wants a more detailed explanation:
prot is read again after the first if (prot & 0x3) and may have changed,
so the second if (prot & 0x3) is not redundant.
Regards,
Carl-Daniel
On 06.05.2009 15:51, s...@coreboot.org wrote:
> Author: hailfinger
> Date: 2009-05-06 15:51:44 +0200 (Wed, 06 May 2009)
> New Revision: 467
>
> Modified:
> trunk/chipset_enable.c
> Log:
> Revert r466 because it introduced a bug:
> If unprotect succeeded, it will print "SB600 unprotect failed".
>
> Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2...@gmx.net>
> Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2...@gmx.net>
>
>
> Modified: trunk/chipset_enable.c
> ===================================================================
> --- trunk/chipset_enable.c 2009-05-06 13:43:26 UTC (rev 466)
> +++ trunk/chipset_enable.c 2009-05-06 13:51:44 UTC (rev 467)
> @@ -675,11 +675,12 @@
> prot &= 0xfffffffc;
> pci_write_byte(dev, reg, prot);
> prot = pci_read_long(dev, reg);
> - printf("SB600 %s%sunprotect failed from %u to %u\n",
> - (prot & 0x1) ? "write " : "",
> - (prot & 0x2) ? "read " : "",
> - (prot & 0xfffffc00),
> - (prot & 0xfffffc00) + ((prot & 0x3ff) << 8));
> + if (prot & 0x3)
> + printf("SB600 still %s%sprotected from %u to %u\n",
> + (prot & 0x1) ? "write " : "",
> + (prot & 0x2) ? "read " : "",
> + (prot & 0xfffffc00),
> + (prot & 0xfffffc00) + ((prot & 0x3ff) << 8));
> }
>
> /* Read SPI_BaseAddr */
>
>
>
--
http://www.hailfinger.org/
--
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
