>
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 09:21:34PM +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 02:32:32PM +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> > > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&resources);
> > > > - ret = acpi_dev_get_resources(device, &resources,
> > > crb_check_resource,
> > > > - &io_res);
> > > > + ret = acpi_dev_get_resources(device, &resources,
> > > > + crb_check_resource, &io_res);
> > >
> > > Do not randomly reflow unrelated text in patches
> >
> > It wasn't random, who breaks code like that...
>
> .. it has nothing to do with this patch.
>
> ., and I have no idea why you think that is better, the original is what
> clang-
> format produces and it computes an optimal break point using Knuth's
> algorithm...
For me it lacks some visual symmetry, but what I can expect from an optimal
algorithm :)
I've revered it already :)
>
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * PTT HW bug w/a: wake up the device to access
> > > > + * possibly not retained registers.
> > > > + */
> > > > + ret = __crb_cmd_ready(dev, priv);
> > > > + if (ret)
> > > > + return ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + pa_high = ioread32(&priv->cca->cmd_pa_high);
> > > > + pa_low = ioread32(&priv->cca->cmd_pa_low);
> > > > + cmd_pa = ((u64)pa_high << 32) | pa_low;
> > >
> > > Why change from the original hunk?
> >
> > This is where the bug is visible... I'll put the debug print back it might
> > be
> useful.
>
> I don't get it, what is the difference? read ordering?
No, read order is not relevant here, just wanted to have each register printed
dev_dbg(dev, "cmd_hi = 0x%X cmd_low = 0x%X cmd_size %d\n",
pa_high, pa_low, cmd_size);
Tomas
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
tpmdd-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpmdd-devel
