From: Colin Ian King <colin.k...@canonical.com>
BT_Active and BT_State are being masked with 0x00ffffff so it the subsequent
comparisons with 0xffffffff are therefore a buggy check. Instead, check them
against 0x00ffffff.
Unfortunately I couldn't find a datasheet or hardware to see if 0xffffffff
is an expected invalid bit pattern that should be checked before BT_Active and
BT_State are masked with 0x00ffffff, so for now, this fix seems like the least
risky approach.
Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.k...@canonical.com>
---
drivers/staging/rtl8723au/hal/rtl8723a_bt-coexist.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723au/hal/rtl8723a_bt-coexist.c
b/drivers/staging/rtl8723au/hal/rtl8723a_bt-coexist.c
index bfcbd7a..6989580 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723au/hal/rtl8723a_bt-coexist.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723au/hal/rtl8723a_bt-coexist.c
@@ -9824,7 +9824,7 @@ void BTDM_CheckBTIdleChange1Ant(struct rtw_adapter
*padapter)
BT_Polling = rtl8723au_read32(padapter, regBTPolling);
RTPRINT(FBT, BT_TRACE, ("[DM][BT], BT_Polling(0x%x) =%x\n",
regBTPolling, BT_Polling));
- if (BT_Active == 0xffffffff && BT_State == 0xffffffff && BT_Polling ==
0xffffffff)
+ if (BT_Active == 0x00ffffff && BT_State == 0x00ffffff && BT_Polling ==
0xffffffff)
return;
if (BT_Polling == 0)
return;
--
2.8.1
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
