Colin King <[email protected]> writes:
> From: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
>
> BT_Active and BT_State are being masked with 0x00ffffff so it the subsequent
> comparisons with 0xffffffff are therefore a buggy check. Instead, check them
> against 0x00ffffff.
>
> Unfortunately I couldn't find a datasheet or hardware to see if 0xffffffff
> is an expected invalid bit pattern that should be checked before BT_Active and
> BT_State are masked with 0x00ffffff, so for now, this fix seems like the least
> risky approach.
>
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/staging/rtl8723au/hal/rtl8723a_bt-coexist.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
I don't really know about the BT parts here, since I never did anything
with that part of the chip. Larry probably knows more.
The only question is whether fixing this bug changes behavior that has
unexpected side effects?
Cheers,
Jes
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723au/hal/rtl8723a_bt-coexist.c
> b/drivers/staging/rtl8723au/hal/rtl8723a_bt-coexist.c
> index bfcbd7a..6989580 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723au/hal/rtl8723a_bt-coexist.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723au/hal/rtl8723a_bt-coexist.c
> @@ -9824,7 +9824,7 @@ void BTDM_CheckBTIdleChange1Ant(struct rtw_adapter
> *padapter)
> BT_Polling = rtl8723au_read32(padapter, regBTPolling);
> RTPRINT(FBT, BT_TRACE, ("[DM][BT], BT_Polling(0x%x) =%x\n",
> regBTPolling, BT_Polling));
>
> - if (BT_Active == 0xffffffff && BT_State == 0xffffffff && BT_Polling ==
> 0xffffffff)
> + if (BT_Active == 0x00ffffff && BT_State == 0x00ffffff && BT_Polling ==
> 0xffffffff)
> return;
> if (BT_Polling == 0)
> return;
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
