On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 at 23:53, Cedric Roux <sed@xxxxxxx> 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 <sed@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> 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
