On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Christian Gmeiner
<christian.gmeiner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>
> Our customers can control LEDs from userspace via Java,
> C++ or what every. They have running/working applications where
> they want to control led_3 but led_2 get's used.
> I got a bug report in our in-house bug tracker so it would be
> great to fix this upstream.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christian Gmeiner <christian.gmeiner@xxxxxxxxx>
Thanks, Christian.
And Andrew, are you going to take care of this patch? Or I will merge this.
-Bryan
> ---
> 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 ee14662..98cae52 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),
> }
> };
>
> --
> 1.7.12.2.421.g261b511
>
--
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
