Patchwork ATM: misplaced parentheses?

I think below is what was intended? otherwise we could as well have written:

tmp = (lanai->conf1 & ~CONFIG1_PROMDATA) ||
	(data & i) ? CONFIG1_PROMDATA : 0;

Does this fix the parsing of the EEPROM?

please review.
-------------------------->8------------------8<---------------------------
Fix misplaced parentheses

Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@gmail.com>
---
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

that doesnt seem to make sense either.  the original code
is:

 		for (i = 128; i != 0; i >>= 1) {   /* write command out */
...
 			tmp = (lanai->conf1 & ~CONFIG1_PROMDATA) |
			    (data & i) ? CONFIG1_PROMDATA : 0;

since i is always positive here, you wouldnt need the ?: if your suggested
fix is the original intent.  it looks like setting CONFIG1_PROMDATA
means '1' and not setting it means '0' when writing the value of data
to the register.

In message <49983DB0.6040008@gmail.com>,Roel Kluin writes:
>I think below is what was intended? otherwise we could as well have written:
>
>tmp = (lanai->conf1 & ~CONFIG1_PROMDATA) ||
>	(data & i) ? CONFIG1_PROMDATA : 0;
>
>Does this fix the parsing of the EEPROM?
>
>please review.
>-------------------------->8------------------8<---------------------------
>Fix misplaced parentheses
>
>Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@gmail.com>
>---
>diff --git a/drivers/atm/lanai.c b/drivers/atm/lanai.c
>index 144a49f..317fb5a 100644
>--- a/drivers/atm/lanai.c
>+++ b/drivers/atm/lanai.c
>@@ -901,7 +901,7 @@ static int __devinit eeprom_read(struct lanai_dev *lanai)
> 		clock_l(); udelay(5);
> 		for (i = 128; i != 0; i >>= 1) {   /* write command out */
> 			tmp = (lanai->conf1 & ~CONFIG1_PROMDATA) |
>-			    (data & i) ? CONFIG1_PROMDATA : 0;
>+			    (data & i ? CONFIG1_PROMDATA : 0);
> 			if (lanai->conf1 != tmp) {
> 				set_config1(tmp);
> 				udelay(5);	/* Let new data settle */
>--
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 05:02:36PM -0500, Chas Williams (CONTRACTOR) wrote:
> that doesnt seem to make sense either.  the original code
> is:
> 
>  		for (i = 128; i != 0; i >>= 1) {   /* write command out */
> ...
>  			tmp = (lanai->conf1 & ~CONFIG1_PROMDATA) |
> 			    (data & i) ? CONFIG1_PROMDATA : 0;
> 
> since i is always positive here, you wouldnt need the ?: if your suggested
> fix is the original intent.  it looks like setting CONFIG1_PROMDATA
> means '1' and not setting it means '0' when writing the value of data
> to the register.

What the hell does it have to do with i being positive?  || variant is,
of course, silly; it's very obvious what's going on here.  Garden-variety
bit-banging, IOW
  			tmp = (lanai->conf1 & ~CONFIG1_PROMDATA) |
 			    ((data & i) ? CONFIG1_PROMDATA : 0);
and while you technically only need parens around ?:, in this case it's
better to keep it fully parenthesised - more readable that way.

The lack of parens around ?: in the current tree is an obvious bug.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html