On Tue, 2016-05-31 at 09:23 +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:02:48AM +0300, Alexander Shiyan wrote: > > > Вторник, 31 мая 2016, 9:26 +03:00 от Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > > > > +Cc Trent > > > > > > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 12:01:12PM +0300, Alexander Shiyan wrote: > > > > Hello. > > > > > > > > Commit dbd7190295298acfb4996ec1aba5165a7be28fdc (mci: Print versions with micro levels correctly) > > > > seems to be incorrect. > > > > > > > > barebox@Informer:/ mmc0.probe=1 > > > > mmc0: detected SD card version 1.a > > > > mmc0: registered mmc0 > > > > > > So what's the expected printout and was it correct without this patch? > > > > Host information: > > current clock: 25000000 > > current buswidth: 4 > > capabilities: 4bit sd-hs mmc-hs > > Card information: > > Attached is an SD Card (Version: 1.10) > > So the %x for printing the minor should really be a %u? No, that will print MMC version 4.41 incorrectly as 4.65. I think the issue is the value of the version codes and how they should be printed. AFAICT, the codes originated in u-boot but were changed in commit "mci: Fix version handling" in 2014. The original u-boot code was easier to print, using "0x429" for version 4.41 so it would print correctly with "%u", but since 0x29 > 0x05 this resulted in 4.41 being sorted after 4.5. I think the fundamental problem here is fault of the people who created the SD and eMMC standards giving us this: 1.10 > 1.01 4.41 < 4.5 It's just not consistent. In one case the last two digits are single number but in the other they are a minor,micro version pair. _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
