From: Colin Ian King Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 10:21:28 +0000 (+0100) Subject: staging: rtl8723au: hal: check BT_Active and BT_State with correct bit pattern X-Git-Tag: v4.9-rc1~119^2~909 X-Git-Url: https://git.karo-electronics.de/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=9731ee897356c9077995b0c454fe19f7fa93ea5d;p=karo-tx-linux.git staging: rtl8723au: hal: check BT_Active and BT_State with correct bit pattern 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 Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723au/hal/rtl8723a_bt-coexist.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8723au/hal/rtl8723a_bt-coexist.c index bfcbd7a349cf..6989580535a4 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;