On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:01:03 +0900
"Kyungmin Park" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yes, reserved word should or must be zero, then it should check "if
> (ext_csd_struct <= 2)" instead of ">= 2".
> In the Spec. 4.2, it can have three value 0, 1, or 2. There's no other
> restriction.
As I said,
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:01:03 +0900
Kyungmin Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, reserved word should or must be zero, then it should check if
(ext_csd_struct = 2) instead of = 2.
In the Spec. 4.2, it can have three value 0, 1, or 2. There's no other
restriction.
As I said, the spec doesn't
On Dec 13, 2007 5:24 PM, Pierre Ossman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:08:16 +0900
> "Kyungmin Park" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > In my MMC Spec. (v4.2), there's no problem to read it even though it's
> > revision 1.1
> >
>
> Well, the spec says that those reserved
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:08:16 +0900
"Kyungmin Park" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In my MMC Spec. (v4.2), there's no problem to read it even though it's
> revision 1.1
>
Well, the spec says that those reserved fields "should be zero". Unfortunately,
people seem to have read this in the IETF
On Dec 13, 2007 4:53 PM, Pierre Ossman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:13:11 +0900
> Kyungmin Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It already checked the ext_csd_struct is less than 2,
> > so it doesn't need to check it.
> > Current code only accepts the revision 1.2.
> >
> >
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:13:11 +0900
Kyungmin Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It already checked the ext_csd_struct is less than 2,
> so it doesn't need to check it.
> Current code only accepts the revision 1.2.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It wasn't wrong the last time
On Dec 13, 2007 4:53 PM, Pierre Ossman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:13:11 +0900
Kyungmin Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It already checked the ext_csd_struct is less than 2,
so it doesn't need to check it.
Current code only accepts the revision 1.2.
Signed-off-by:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:13:11 +0900
Kyungmin Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It already checked the ext_csd_struct is less than 2,
so it doesn't need to check it.
Current code only accepts the revision 1.2.
Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It wasn't wrong the last time you
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:08:16 +0900
Kyungmin Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my MMC Spec. (v4.2), there's no problem to read it even though it's
revision 1.1
Well, the spec says that those reserved fields should be zero. Unfortunately,
people seem to have read this in the IETF sense and
On Dec 13, 2007 5:24 PM, Pierre Ossman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:08:16 +0900
Kyungmin Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my MMC Spec. (v4.2), there's no problem to read it even though it's
revision 1.1
Well, the spec says that those reserved fields should be zero.
It already checked the ext_csd_struct is less than 2,
so it doesn't need to check it.
Current code only accepts the revision 1.2.
Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c
index 68c0e3b..7689760 100644
---
It already checked the ext_csd_struct is less than 2,
so it doesn't need to check it.
Current code only accepts the revision 1.2.
Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c
index 68c0e3b..7689760 100644
---
12 matches
Mail list logo
