> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 08:41:10PM +0400, Alexander Shiyan wrote:
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Shiyan <shc_work@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/mci/imx-esdhc.c | 7 ++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mci/imx-esdhc.c b/drivers/mci/imx-esdhc.c
> > index 8c2695c..8194b4d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mci/imx-esdhc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mci/imx-esdhc.c
> > @@ -450,10 +450,15 @@ static int esdhc_card_present(struct mci_host *mci)
> > static int esdhc_init(struct mci_host *mci, struct device_d *dev)
> > {
> > struct fsl_esdhc_host *host = to_fsl_esdhc(mci);
> > - struct fsl_esdhc __iomem *regs = host->regs;
> > + struct fsl_esdhc __iomem *regs;
> > int timeout = 1000;
> > int ret = 0;
> >
> > + if (!host)
> > + return -EIO;
>
> How should that happen? The mci core should not call this callback with
> a NULL pointer, and if it does, there is a bug in the mci core.
Pls, just drop 5/9 and 9/9.
Thanks.
---
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
