[PATCH] megasas: Fix outw, outl argument order

[Stefan Weil]

The value is the first argument and the port is the second,
but the code was using the opposite order.

Cc: Hannes Reinecke 
Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil 
---

The outw statement looks strange, because there is
also an outl statement with the same arguments.

Maybe both statements should either use outw or outl.

Regards
Stefan

src/hw/megasas.c | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/hw/megasas.c b/src/hw/megasas.c
index 5a07ab3..c009951 100644
--- a/src/hw/megasas.c
+++ b/src/hw/megasas.c
@@ -301,9 +301,9 @@ static int megasas_transition_to_ready(struct pci_device *pci, u32 ioaddr)
                 pci->device == PCI_DEVICE_ID_LSI_SAS2008 ||
                 pci->device == PCI_DEVICE_ID_LSI_SAS2208 ||
                 pci->device == PCI_DEVICE_ID_LSI_SAS3108) {
-                outl(ioaddr + MFI_DB, mfi_flags);
+                outl(mfi_flags, ioaddr + MFI_DB);
             } else {
-                outl(ioaddr + MFI_IDB, mfi_flags);
+                outl(mfi_flags, ioaddr + MFI_IDB);
             }
             break;
         case MFI_STATE_OPERATIONAL:
@@ -312,7 +312,7 @@ static int megasas_transition_to_ready(struct pci_device *pci, u32 ioaddr)
                 pci->device == PCI_DEVICE_ID_LSI_SAS2008 ||
                 pci->device == PCI_DEVICE_ID_LSI_SAS2208 ||
                 pci->device == PCI_DEVICE_ID_LSI_SAS3108) {
-                outl(ioaddr + MFI_DB, mfi_flags);
+                outl(mfi_flags, ioaddr + MFI_DB);
                 if (pci->device == PCI_DEVICE_ID_LSI_SAS2208 ||
                     pci->device == PCI_DEVICE_ID_LSI_SAS3108) {
                     int j = 0;
@@ -327,7 +327,7 @@ static int megasas_transition_to_ready(struct pci_device *pci, u32 ioaddr)
                     }
                 }
             } else {
-                outw(ioaddr + MFI_IDB, mfi_flags);
+                outw(mfi_flags, ioaddr + MFI_IDB);
             }
             break;
         case MFI_STATE_READY:

[Hannes Reinecke]

On 08/29/2015 08:02 AM, Stefan Weil wrote:
> The value is the first argument and the port is the second,
> but the code was using the opposite order.
>
> Cc: Hannes Reinecke 
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil
>
> The outw statement looks strange, because there is
> also an outl statement with the same arguments.
>
> Maybe both statements should either use outw or outl.
>
> Regards
> Stefan
>
> src/hw/megasas.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/hw/megasas.c b/src/hw/megasas.c
> index 5a07ab3..c009951 100644
> --- a/src/hw/megasas.c
> +++ b/src/hw/megasas.c
> @@ -301,9 +301,9 @@ static int megasas_transition_to_ready(struct pci_device *pci, u32 ioaddr)
>                  pci->device == PCI_DEVICE_ID_LSI_SAS2008 ||
>                  pci->device == PCI_DEVICE_ID_LSI_SAS2208 ||
>                  pci->device == PCI_DEVICE_ID_LSI_SAS3108) {
>            outl(ioaddr + MFI_DB, mfi_flags);
>            outl(mfi_flags, ioaddr + MFI_DB);
>        } else {
>            outl(ioaddr + MFI_IDB, mfi_flags);
>            outl(mfi_flags, ioaddr + MFI_IDB);
>        }
>        break;
>    case MFI_STATE_OPERATIONAL:
>
> @@ -312,7 +312,7 @@ static int megasas_transition_to_ready(struct pci_device *pci, u32 ioaddr)
>                  pci->device == PCI_DEVICE_ID_LSI_SAS2008 ||
>                  pci->device == PCI_DEVICE_ID_LSI_SAS2208 ||
>                  pci->device == PCI_DEVICE_ID_LSI_SAS3108) {
>            outl(ioaddr + MFI_DB, mfi_flags);
>            outl(mfi_flags, ioaddr + MFI_DB);
>            if (pci->device == PCI_DEVICE_ID_LSI_SAS2208 ||
>                pci->device == PCI_DEVICE_ID_LSI_SAS3108) {
>                int j = 0;
>
> @@ -327,7 +327,7 @@ static int megasas_transition_to_ready(struct pci_device *pci, u32 ioaddr)
>                      }
>                  }
>              } else {
>            outw(ioaddr + MFI_IDB, mfi_flags);
>            outw(mfi_flags, ioaddr + MFI_IDB);
>        }
>        break;
>    case MFI_STATE_READY:

And indeed, this should've been an 'outl'.
Can you fix it up?

Thanks.

Cheers,

Hannes

[Kevin O'Connor]

On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 08:02:38AM +0200, Stefan Weil wrote:
> The value is the first argument and the port is the second,
> but the code was using the opposite order.

Thanks - I committed this patch.  I also committed a follow up patch
turning the outw() into an outl().

-Kevin