From a746b578d8406b2db0e9f0d040061bc1f78433cf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Roel Kluin Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:19:48 +0100 Subject: i2c: Timeouts reach -1 With a postfix decrement these timeouts reach -1 rather than 0, but after the loop it is tested whether they have become 0. As pointed out by Jean Delvare, the condition we are waiting for should also be tested before the timeout. With the current order, you could exit with a timeout error while the job is actually done. Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare --- drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-amd8111.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-amd8111.c') diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-amd8111.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-amd8111.c index edab51973bf..a7c59908c45 100644 --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-amd8111.c +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-amd8111.c @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ static unsigned int amd_ec_wait_write(struct amd_smbus *smbus) { int timeout = 500; - while (timeout-- && (inb(smbus->base + AMD_EC_SC) & AMD_EC_SC_IBF)) + while ((inb(smbus->base + AMD_EC_SC) & AMD_EC_SC_IBF) && --timeout) udelay(1); if (!timeout) { @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ static unsigned int amd_ec_wait_read(struct amd_smbus *smbus) { int timeout = 500; - while (timeout-- && (~inb(smbus->base + AMD_EC_SC) & AMD_EC_SC_OBF)) + while ((~inb(smbus->base + AMD_EC_SC) & AMD_EC_SC_OBF) && --timeout) udelay(1); if (!timeout) { -- cgit v1.2.3-70-g09d2