> I think the original is ambiguous and the suggested change is incorrect. > Hopefully correct code follows: > > if ((id != 0x0680) && (!(mmio_readl(sii_bar) & (1 << 26)))) > > The code tries to test if a given bit is not set. Sorry, I failed to understand that (was wondering of that code...). Now i'm mystified of how the sign-off/ack procedure works when you fixed the only change in my patch ... Who should make the new patch + sign off?
-- urjaman -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
