| Message ID | 20180907215446.15160-2-sed@free.fr (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v3,1/2] ARM: s3c24xx: formatting cleanup in mach-mini2440.c | expand |
On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 at 23:53, Cedric Roux <sed@free.fr> wrote: > > The mini2440 computer uses "active high" to signal that the "write protect" > of the inserted MMC is set. The current code uses the opposite, leading to > a wrong detection of write protection. The solution is simply to use > ".wprotect_invert = 1" in the description of the MMC. > > Signed-off-by: Cedric Roux <sed@free.fr> > --- > arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c | 9 +++++---- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c b/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c > index 4a0bf6abba8c..bfce7971d741 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c > @@ -234,10 +234,11 @@ static struct s3c2410fb_mach_info mini2440_fb_info __initdata = { > /* MMC/SD */ > > static struct s3c24xx_mci_pdata mini2440_mmc_cfg __initdata = { > - .gpio_detect = S3C2410_GPG(8), > - .gpio_wprotect = S3C2410_GPH(8), > - .set_power = NULL, > - .ocr_avail = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34, > + .gpio_detect = S3C2410_GPG(8), > + .gpio_wprotect = S3C2410_GPH(8), > + .wprotect_invert = 1, > + .set_power = NULL, > + .ocr_avail = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34, This looks unexpected... after patch 1 there should be only one change - one new line added. What happened here? Best regards, Krzysztof
On 09/10/2018 12:23 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> static struct s3c24xx_mci_pdata mini2440_mmc_cfg __initdata = { >> - .gpio_detect = S3C2410_GPG(8), >> - .gpio_wprotect = S3C2410_GPH(8), >> - .set_power = NULL, >> - .ocr_avail = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34, >> + .gpio_detect = S3C2410_GPG(8), >> + .gpio_wprotect = S3C2410_GPH(8), >> + .wprotect_invert = 1, >> + .set_power = NULL, >> + .ocr_avail = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34, > > This looks unexpected... after patch 1 there should be only one change > - one new line added. What happened here? This is to align all the '='. These were spaces before the '=' so I also used spaces. Should I put TABs instead? I looked in the coding style and didn't find anything about this specific thing (maybe I read too fast though). And if this ends up unaligned because 'wprotect_invert' requires a second TAB for the others, should I do a separate commit? Thanks. Regards, Cédric.
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 06:55:09PM +0200, Cedric Roux wrote: > On 09/10/2018 12:23 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> static struct s3c24xx_mci_pdata mini2440_mmc_cfg __initdata = { > >> - .gpio_detect = S3C2410_GPG(8), > >> - .gpio_wprotect = S3C2410_GPH(8), > >> - .set_power = NULL, > >> - .ocr_avail = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34, > >> + .gpio_detect = S3C2410_GPG(8), > >> + .gpio_wprotect = S3C2410_GPH(8), > >> + .wprotect_invert = 1, > >> + .set_power = NULL, > >> + .ocr_avail = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34, > > > > This looks unexpected... after patch 1 there should be only one change > > - one new line added. What happened here? > > This is to align all the '='. > > These were spaces before the '=' so I also used spaces. > Should I put TABs instead? I looked in the coding style > and didn't find anything about this specific thing > (maybe I read too fast though). > > And if this ends up unaligned because 'wprotect_invert' > requires a second TAB for the others, should I do a separate > commit? Ah, I understand. It's okay, thanks! Best regards, Krzysztof
On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 11:54:46PM +0200, Cedric Roux wrote: > The mini2440 computer uses "active high" to signal that the "write protect" > of the inserted MMC is set. The current code uses the opposite, leading to > a wrong detection of write protection. The solution is simply to use > ".wprotect_invert = 1" in the description of the MMC. > > Signed-off-by: Cedric Roux <sed@free.fr> > --- > arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c | 9 +++++---- Thanks, applied. Best regards, Krzysztof
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c b/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c index 4a0bf6abba8c..bfce7971d741 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c @@ -234,10 +234,11 @@ static struct s3c2410fb_mach_info mini2440_fb_info __initdata = { /* MMC/SD */ static struct s3c24xx_mci_pdata mini2440_mmc_cfg __initdata = { - .gpio_detect = S3C2410_GPG(8), - .gpio_wprotect = S3C2410_GPH(8), - .set_power = NULL, - .ocr_avail = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34, + .gpio_detect = S3C2410_GPG(8), + .gpio_wprotect = S3C2410_GPH(8), + .wprotect_invert = 1, + .set_power = NULL, + .ocr_avail = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34, }; /* NAND Flash on MINI2440 board */
The mini2440 computer uses "active high" to signal that the "write protect" of the inserted MMC is set. The current code uses the opposite, leading to a wrong detection of write protection. The solution is simply to use ".wprotect_invert = 1" in the description of the MMC. Signed-off-by: Cedric Roux <sed@free.fr> --- arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c | 9 +++++---- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)