There is a copy and paste bug so we accidentally use the RX_ shift when
we're in TX_ mode.
Fixes: bb8b2062aff3 ("fsl/qe: setup clock source for TDM mode")
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
---
Static analysis work. Not tested. This affects the success path, so
we should probably test it.
diff --git a/drivers/soc/fsl/qe/ucc.c b/drivers/soc/fsl/qe/ucc.c
index c646d8713861..681f7d4b7724 100644
--- a/drivers/soc/fsl/qe/ucc.c
+++ b/drivers/soc/fsl/qe/ucc.c
@@ -626,7 +626,7 @@ static u32 ucc_get_tdm_sync_shift(enum comm_dir mode, u32 tdm_num)
{
u32 shift;
- shift = (mode == COMM_DIR_RX) ? RX_SYNC_SHIFT_BASE : RX_SYNC_SHIFT_BASE;
+ shift = (mode == COMM_DIR_RX) ? RX_SYNC_SHIFT_BASE : TX_SYNC_SHIFT_BASE;
shift -= tdm_num * 2;
return shift;
Where did the original go ?
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/868158/
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:02 PM Dan Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> There is a copy and paste bug so we accidentally use the RX_ shift when
> we're in TX_ mode.
>
> Fixes: bb8b2062aff3 ("fsl/qe: setup clock source for TDM mode")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
> ---
> Static analysis work. Not tested. This affects the success path, so
> we should probably test it.
>
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/fsl/qe/ucc.c b/drivers/soc/fsl/qe/ucc.c
> index c646d8713861..681f7d4b7724 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/fsl/qe/ucc.c
> +++ b/drivers/soc/fsl/qe/ucc.c
> @@ -626,7 +626,7 @@ static u32 ucc_get_tdm_sync_shift(enum comm_dir mode, u32 tdm_num)
> {
> u32 shift;
>
> - shift = (mode == COMM_DIR_RX) ? RX_SYNC_SHIFT_BASE : RX_SYNC_SHIFT_BASE;
> + shift = (mode == COMM_DIR_RX) ? RX_SYNC_SHIFT_BASE : TX_SYNC_SHIFT_BASE;
> shift -= tdm_num * 2;
>
> return shift;
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> There is a copy and paste bug so we accidentally use the RX_ shift when
> we're in TX_ mode.
>
> Fixes: bb8b2062aff3 ("fsl/qe: setup clock source for TDM mode")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
> ---
> Static analysis work. Not tested. This affects the success path, so
> we should probably test it.
Maybe this is another one? I don't have time to look into it at the
moment...
drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnx2x/bnx2x_link.c
/* For strict priority entries defines the number of consecutive
* slots for the highest priority.
*/
REG_WR(bp, (port) ? NIG_REG_P1_TX_ARB_NUM_STRICT_ARB_SLOTS :
NIG_REG_P1_TX_ARB_NUM_STRICT_ARB_SLOTS, 0x100);
/* Mapping between the CREDIT_WEIGHT registers and actual client
* numbers
*/
I find some others that choose between constants, such as ... ? 0 : 0.
julia
>
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/fsl/qe/ucc.c b/drivers/soc/fsl/qe/ucc.c
> index c646d8713861..681f7d4b7724 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/fsl/qe/ucc.c
> +++ b/drivers/soc/fsl/qe/ucc.c
> @@ -626,7 +626,7 @@ static u32 ucc_get_tdm_sync_shift(enum comm_dir mode, u32 tdm_num)
> {
> u32 shift;
>
> - shift = (mode == COMM_DIR_RX) ? RX_SYNC_SHIFT_BASE : RX_SYNC_SHIFT_BASE;
> + shift = (mode == COMM_DIR_RX) ? RX_SYNC_SHIFT_BASE : TX_SYNC_SHIFT_BASE;
> shift -= tdm_num * 2;
>
> return shift;
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 10:25:14PM +0900, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>
> > There is a copy and paste bug so we accidentally use the RX_ shift when
> > we're in TX_ mode.
> >
> > Fixes: bb8b2062aff3 ("fsl/qe: setup clock source for TDM mode")
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > Static analysis work. Not tested. This affects the success path, so
> > we should probably test it.
>
> Maybe this is another one? I don't have time to look into it at the
> moment...
>
> drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnx2x/bnx2x_link.c
>
> /* For strict priority entries defines the number of consecutive
> * slots for the highest priority.
> */
> REG_WR(bp, (port) ? NIG_REG_P1_TX_ARB_NUM_STRICT_ARB_SLOTS :
> NIG_REG_P1_TX_ARB_NUM_STRICT_ARB_SLOTS, 0x100);
> /* Mapping between the CREDIT_WEIGHT registers and actual client
> * numbers
> */
>
> I find some others that choose between constants, such as ... ? 0 : 0.
I feel like it should warn about all of those because people shouldn't
be submitting unfinished written code to the kernel. Coccinelle is a
lot better for this than Smatch is because it's pre-processor stuff.
regards,
dan carpenter
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 10:25:14PM +0900, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> >
> > > There is a copy and paste bug so we accidentally use the RX_ shift when
> > > we're in TX_ mode.
> > >
> > > Fixes: bb8b2062aff3 ("fsl/qe: setup clock source for TDM mode")
> > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > Static analysis work. Not tested. This affects the success path, so
> > > we should probably test it.
> >
> > Maybe this is another one? I don't have time to look into it at the
> > moment...
> >
> > drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnx2x/bnx2x_link.c
> >
> > /* For strict priority entries defines the number of consecutive
> > * slots for the highest priority.
> > */
> > REG_WR(bp, (port) ? NIG_REG_P1_TX_ARB_NUM_STRICT_ARB_SLOTS :
> > NIG_REG_P1_TX_ARB_NUM_STRICT_ARB_SLOTS, 0x100);
> > /* Mapping between the CREDIT_WEIGHT registers and actual client
> > * numbers
> > */
> >
> > I find some others that choose between constants, such as ... ? 0 : 0.
>
> I feel like it should warn about all of those because people shouldn't
> be submitting unfinished written code to the kernel. Coccinelle is a
> lot better for this than Smatch is because it's pre-processor stuff.
OK, maybe I can report these in the next few days.
thanks,
julia
On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 02:06:45PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> Where did the original go ?
>
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/868158/
>
>
Btw, we still haven't pushed a patch for this bug.
regards,
dan carpenter
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 4:42 AM Dan Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 02:06:45PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> > Where did the original go ?
> >
> > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/868158/
> >
> >
>
> Btw, we still haven't pushed a patch for this bug.
I will combine Zhao Qiang's patch with your description which is
better, and push as fix for 4.19.
Regards,
Leo