Le 02/05/2013 17:48, Сергей Василюгин a écrit :
>
>
> 02.05.2013, 22:24, "John Crispin" <[email protected]>:
>> On 02/05/13 17:07, Сергей Василюгин wrote:
>>
>>> if (uart) {
>>> int m = ralink_mux_mask(uart, rt_gpio_pinmux.uart);
>>> - mode |= rt_gpio_pinmux.uart_mask<< rt_gpio_pinmux.uart_shift;
>>> if (m) {
>>> - mode&= ~(m<< rt_gpio_pinmux.uart_shift);
>>
>> this line should be
>> mode&= ~(rt_gpio_pinmux.uart_mask << rt_gpio_pinmux.uart_shift);
>>
>> could you try with just that one line changed ?
>
> I'm sure it will work. But clarity of code is the main question. It's not
> obvious that uart_mask is equivalent to uartfull gpio mode. Just add
> uart_default_mode field?
No, this doesn't. The problem is that m is only null when there is no
"ralink,uartmux" property defined in DTS.
When the "ralink,uartmux" property is set to "gpio", m will be equal to the
uart_mask (all bits in the uart_mask set to 1), I will send a working patch
following this message.
-Michel
>
>>> mode |= (m<< rt_gpio_pinmux.uart_shift);
>>> pr_debug("pinmux: registered uartmux \"%s\"\n",
>>> uart);
>>> } else {
>>> + mode |= rt_gpio_pinmux.uart_mask<< rt_gpio_pinmux.uart_shift;
>>> pr_debug("pinmux: registered uartmux
>>> \"gpio\"\n");
>>> }
>>> }
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> openwrt-devel mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
>
> ---
> serge
> _______________________________________________
> openwrt-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
>
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
