From: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
The calculation of offtune_val seems incorrect, the u16 value in
pi->tx_rx_cal_radio_saveregs[2] is being masked with 0xf0 and then
shifted 8 places right so that always ends up as a zero result. I
believe the intended shift was 4 bits to the right. Fix this.
[Note: not tested, I don't have the H/W]
Addresses-Coverity: ("Operands don't affect result")
Fixes: 5b435de0d786 ("net: wireless: add brcm80211 drivers")
Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
---
drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmsmac/phy/phy_n.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmsmac/phy/phy_n.c b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmsmac/phy/phy_n.c
index 8580a2754789..2c04bae6e21c 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmsmac/phy/phy_n.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmsmac/phy/phy_n.c
@@ -26329,7 +26329,7 @@ static void wlc_phy_rxcal_radio_setup_nphy(struct brcms_phy *pi, u8 rx_core)
offtune_val =
(pi->tx_rx_cal_radio_saveregs
- [2] & 0xF0) >> 8;
+ [2] & 0xF0) >> 4;
offtune_val =
(offtune_val <= 0x7) ? 0xF : 0;
--
2.30.2
Colin King <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
>
> The calculation of offtune_val seems incorrect, the u16 value in
> pi->tx_rx_cal_radio_saveregs[2] is being masked with 0xf0 and then
> shifted 8 places right so that always ends up as a zero result. I
> believe the intended shift was 4 bits to the right. Fix this.
>
> [Note: not tested, I don't have the H/W]
>
> Addresses-Coverity: ("Operands don't affect result")
> Fixes: 5b435de0d786 ("net: wireless: add brcm80211 drivers")
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
I think this needs review from someone familiar with the hardware.
Patch set to Changes Requested.
--
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/patch/[email protected]/
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
On Sun, 2021-04-18 at 06:10 +0000, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Colin King <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > From: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
> >
> > The calculation of offtune_val seems incorrect, the u16 value in
> > pi->tx_rx_cal_radio_saveregs[2] is being masked with 0xf0 and then
> > shifted 8 places right so that always ends up as a zero result. I
> > believe the intended shift was 4 bits to the right. Fix this.
> >
> > [Note: not tested, I don't have the H/W]
> >
> > Addresses-Coverity: ("Operands don't affect result")
> > Fixes: 5b435de0d786 ("net: wireless: add brcm80211 drivers")
> > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
>
> I think this needs review from someone familiar with the hardware.
>
> Patch set to Changes Requested.
What "change" are you requesting here?
Likely there needs to be some other setting for the patch.
Perhaps "deferred" as you seem to be requesting a review
and there's no actual change necessary, just approval from
someone with the hardware and that someone test the patch.
Joe Perches <[email protected]> writes:
> On Sun, 2021-04-18 at 06:10 +0000, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Colin King <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > From: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
>> >
>> > The calculation of offtune_val seems incorrect, the u16 value in
>> > pi->tx_rx_cal_radio_saveregs[2] is being masked with 0xf0 and then
>> > shifted 8 places right so that always ends up as a zero result. I
>> > believe the intended shift was 4 bits to the right. Fix this.
>> >
>> > [Note: not tested, I don't have the H/W]
>> >
>> > Addresses-Coverity: ("Operands don't affect result")
>> > Fixes: 5b435de0d786 ("net: wireless: add brcm80211 drivers")
>> > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
>>
>> I think this needs review from someone familiar with the hardware.
>>
>> Patch set to Changes Requested.
>
> What "change" are you requesting here?
Don't take patchwork states literally, a better name for this state
would be "Needs work" or something like that.
> Likely there needs to be some other setting for the patch.
>
> Perhaps "deferred" as you seem to be requesting a review
> and there's no actual change necessary, just approval from
> someone with the hardware and that someone test the patch.
I already asked for help on April 7th and nobody replied, so I'm
dropping this now. The patch can be resent if/when the change is
confirmed to be correct.
--
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches