Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] scsi:NCR5380: remove same check condition in NCR5380_select | From | Michael Schmitz <> | Date | Thu, 2 Aug 2018 19:32:37 +1200 |
| |
Am 02.08.2018 um 15:45 schrieb zhong jiang: > On 2018/8/2 11:26, Bart Van Assche wrote: >> On Thu, 2018-08-02 at 11:10 +0800, zhong jiang wrote: >>> The same check condition is redundant, so remove one of them. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: zhong jiang <zhongjiang@huawei.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c | 3 +-- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c b/drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c >>> index 90ea0f5..2ecaf3f 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c >>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c >>> @@ -999,8 +999,7 @@ static struct scsi_cmnd *NCR5380_select(struct Scsi_Host *instance, >>> >>> /* Check for lost arbitration */ >>> if ((NCR5380_read(INITIATOR_COMMAND_REG) & ICR_ARBITRATION_LOST) || >>> - (NCR5380_read(CURRENT_SCSI_DATA_REG) & hostdata->id_higher_mask) || >>> - (NCR5380_read(INITIATOR_COMMAND_REG) & ICR_ARBITRATION_LOST)) { >>> + (NCR5380_read(CURRENT_SCSI_DATA_REG) & hostdata->id_higher_mask)) { >>> NCR5380_write(MODE_REG, MR_BASE); >>> dsprintk(NDEBUG_ARBITRATION, instance, "lost arbitration, deasserting MR_ARBITRATE\n"); >>> spin_lock_irq(&hostdata->lock); >> Has this patch been tested? > I check the issue by doubletest.cocci. Just review the code by myself. Maybe I miss something else. > please tell let me know if you any objection.
This redundant load of the ICR has been in the driver code for a long time. There's a small chance it is intentional, so at least minimal testing might be in order.
Finn - does the ICR_ARBITRATION_LOST bit have to be cleared by a write to the mode register? In that case, the first load would have been redundant and can be omitted without changing driver behaviour?
Cheers,
Michael
> > Thanks > zhong jiang >> Thanks, >> >> Bart. >> >> >> > >
| |