On 15 February 2018 at 22:05, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org>
> Acked-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@xilinx.com>
> ---
> hw/sd/sd.c | 8 +++++---
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/sd/sd.c b/hw/sd/sd.c
> index 564f7a9bfd..af4df2b104 100644
> --- a/hw/sd/sd.c
> +++ b/hw/sd/sd.c
> @@ -818,13 +818,15 @@ static void sd_lock_command(SDState *sd)
> sd->card_status &= ~CARD_IS_LOCKED;
> }
>
> -static sd_rsp_type_t sd_normal_command(SDState *sd,
> - SDRequest req)
> +static sd_rsp_type_t sd_normal_command(SDState *sd, SDRequest req)
> {
> uint32_t rca = 0x0000;
> uint64_t addr = (sd->ocr & (1 << 30)) ? (uint64_t) req.arg << 9 :
> req.arg;
>
> - trace_sdcard_normal_command(req.cmd, req.arg, sd_state_name(sd->state));
> + if (req.cmd != 55 || sd->expecting_acmd) {
> + trace_sdcard_normal_command(req.cmd, req.arg,
> + sd_state_name(sd->state));
> + }
The commit message says "don't trace CMD55 when expecting ACMD",
but the code says "don't trace CMD55 when *not* expecting ACMD" --
which is correct?
thanks
-- PMM
