Re: [bug report] scsi: ufs-qcom: dump additional testbus registers

2017-02-16 Thread Subhash Jadavani 

On 2017-02-13 23:58, Dan Carpenter wrote:

Hello Venkat Gopalakrishnan,

The patch 9c46b8676271: "scsi: ufs-qcom: dump additional testbus
registers" from Feb 3, 2017, leads to the following static checker
warning:

drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c:1531 ufs_qcom_testbus_cfg_is_ok()
warn: impossible condition '(host->testbus.select_minor > 255) =>
(0-255 > 255)'

drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c
  1517  static bool ufs_qcom_testbus_cfg_is_ok(struct ufs_qcom_host 
*host)

  1518  {
  1519  if (host->testbus.select_major >= TSTBUS_MAX) {
  1520  dev_err(host->hba->dev,
  1521  "%s: UFS_CFG1[TEST_BUS_SEL} may not
equal 0x%05X\n",
  1522  __func__, host->testbus.select_major);
  1523  return false;
  1524  }
  1525
  1526  /*
  1527   * Not performing check for each individual 
select_major

  1528   * mappings of select_minor, since there is no harm in
  1529   * configuring a non-existent select_minor
  1530   */
  1531  if (host->testbus.select_minor > 0xFF) {
^

It might make sense to keep this check.  I don't know.  But it's
confusing that 0xFF is a magic number.  Better to make it a define.


Yes, i agree, this check is redundant. I will post a fix to remove this.



  1532  dev_err(host->hba->dev,
  1533  "%s: 0x%05X is not a legal testbus 
option\n",

  1534  __func__, host->testbus.select_minor);
  1535  return false;
  1536  }
  1537
  1538  return true;
  1539  }

regards,
dan carpenter


--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

[bug report] scsi: ufs-qcom: dump additional testbus registers

2017-02-13 Thread Dan Carpenter 
Hello Venkat Gopalakrishnan,

The patch 9c46b8676271: "scsi: ufs-qcom: dump additional testbus
registers" from Feb 3, 2017, leads to the following static checker
warning:

drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c:1531 ufs_qcom_testbus_cfg_is_ok()
warn: impossible condition '(host->testbus.select_minor > 255) => 
(0-255 > 255)'

drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c
  1517  static bool ufs_qcom_testbus_cfg_is_ok(struct ufs_qcom_host *host)
  1518  {
  1519  if (host->testbus.select_major >= TSTBUS_MAX) {
  1520  dev_err(host->hba->dev,
  1521  "%s: UFS_CFG1[TEST_BUS_SEL} may not equal 
0x%05X\n",
  1522  __func__, host->testbus.select_major);
  1523  return false;
  1524  }
  1525  
  1526  /*
  1527   * Not performing check for each individual select_major
  1528   * mappings of select_minor, since there is no harm in
  1529   * configuring a non-existent select_minor
  1530   */
  1531  if (host->testbus.select_minor > 0xFF) {
^

It might make sense to keep this check.  I don't know.  But it's
confusing that 0xFF is a magic number.  Better to make it a define.

  1532  dev_err(host->hba->dev,
  1533  "%s: 0x%05X is not a legal testbus option\n",
  1534  __func__, host->testbus.select_minor);
  1535  return false;
  1536  }
  1537  
  1538  return true;
  1539  }

regards,
dan carpenter