2012/12/13 Christian Gmeiner <christian.gmeiner@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> During the development of this driver an in-house register
>> documentation was used. The last weeks some integration tests
>> were done and this problem was found. It turned out that
>> the released register documentation is wrong.
>>
>> The fix is very simple: shift all masks by one.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christian Gmeiner <christian.gmeiner@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/leds/leds-ot200.c | 14 +++++++-------
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/leds/leds-ot200.c b/drivers/leds/leds-ot200.c
>> index c464682..676e729 100644
>> --- a/drivers/leds/leds-ot200.c
>> +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-ot200.c
>> @@ -47,37 +47,37 @@ static struct ot200_led leds[] = {
>> {
>> .name = "led_1",
>> .port = 0x49,
>> - .mask = BIT(7),
>> + .mask = BIT(6),
>> },
>> {
>> .name = "led_2",
>> .port = 0x49,
>> - .mask = BIT(6),
>> + .mask = BIT(5),
>> },
>> {
>> .name = "led_3",
>> .port = 0x49,
>> - .mask = BIT(5),
>> + .mask = BIT(4),
>> },
>> {
>> .name = "led_4",
>> .port = 0x49,
>> - .mask = BIT(4),
>> + .mask = BIT(3),
>> },
>> {
>> .name = "led_5",
>> .port = 0x49,
>> - .mask = BIT(3),
>> + .mask = BIT(2),
>> },
>> {
>> .name = "led_6",
>> .port = 0x49,
>> - .mask = BIT(2),
>> + .mask = BIT(1),
>> },
>> {
>> .name = "led_7",
>> .port = 0x49,
>> - .mask = BIT(1),
>> + .mask = BIT(0),
>> }
>> };
>>
>> --
>> 1.7.10.4
>>
>
> Is something missing to get this patch merged?
> --
> Christian Gmeiner, MSc
ping
--
Christian Gmeiner, MSc
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
