On Sat, Oct 08, 2016 at 11:10:10AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Sat, 8 Oct 2016, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2016 10:40:37 -0000, Nicholas Mc Guire said:
} else if (rtlpcipriv->bt_coexist.bt_service == BT_PAN) { rtl_write_byte(rtlpriv, REG_GPIO_MUXCFG, tmp1byte); } else { rtl_write_byte(rtlpriv, REG_GPIO_MUXCFG, tmp1byte); }
That *does* smell like a bug. If nothing else, the last 'else if' can be removed. Most likely case: somebody cut-n-pasted that last section in and failed to change it to a proper 'default' value and the code falls through to that one rarely enough that nobody has noticed.
if that's the behaviour the developer actually wants, then yes, it's messy. but i would be very careful just simplifying it wholesale, since it also smacks of a typo where one copy-and-pasted to add the default case, then forgot to tweak it to be different.
rather than "fixing" it, i would bring it to the attention of the maintainer, and ask him or her to resolve it.
sure - no point in fixing code one does not understand. if at all I send "fixes" out as RFCs if it seems like an obvious case - and in all other cases a notification/questions are sent but no patch. thx! hofrat