Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ARM: s3c24xx: Correct SD card write protect detection on Mini2440
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 > --- > arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c | 9 + Thanks, applied. Best regards, Krzysztof
Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ARM: s3c24xx: Correct SD card write protect detection on Mini2440
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 > --- > arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/mach-mini2440.c | 9 + Thanks, applied. Best regards, Krzysztof
Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ARM: s3c24xx: Correct SD card write protect detection on Mini2440
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
Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ARM: s3c24xx: Correct SD card write protect detection on Mini2440
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
Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ARM: s3c24xx: Correct SD card write protect detection on Mini2440
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.
Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ARM: s3c24xx: Correct SD card write protect detection on Mini2440
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.
Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ARM: s3c24xx: Correct SD card write protect detection on Mini2440
On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 at 23:53, 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
> ---
> 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
Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ARM: s3c24xx: Correct SD card write protect detection on Mini2440
On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 at 23:53, 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
> ---
> 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
