On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 04:33:57PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 12:08:49PM +0100, Colin King wrote: > > From: Colin Ian King <[email protected]> > > > > The expression !(hw_cap & XGMAC_HWFEAT_RAVSEL) >> 10 is always zero, so > > the masking operation is incorrect. Fix this by adding the missing > > parentheses to correctly bind the negate operator on the entire expression. > > > > Addresses-Coverity: ("Operands don't affect result") > > Fixes: c2b69474d63b ("net: stmmac: xgmac: Correct RAVSEL field > > interpretation") > > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwxgmac2_dma.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwxgmac2_dma.c > > b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwxgmac2_dma.c > > index 965cbe3e6f51..2e814aa64a5c 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwxgmac2_dma.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwxgmac2_dma.c > > @@ -369,7 +369,7 @@ static void dwxgmac2_get_hw_feature(void __iomem > > *ioaddr, > > dma_cap->eee = (hw_cap & XGMAC_HWFEAT_EEESEL) >> 13; > > dma_cap->atime_stamp = (hw_cap & XGMAC_HWFEAT_TSSEL) >> 12; > > dma_cap->av = (hw_cap & XGMAC_HWFEAT_AVSEL) >> 11; > > - dma_cap->av &= !(hw_cap & XGMAC_HWFEAT_RAVSEL) >> 10; > > + dma_cap->av &= !((hw_cap & XGMAC_HWFEAT_RAVSEL) >> 10); > > There is no point to the shift at all.
Sorry I meant to say it should be a bitwise NOT, right? I was just looking at some other dma_cap stuff that did this same thing... I can't find it now... regards, dan carpenter
