[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d6cda7730910271753o54acfa04t1225de460083325f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:53:26 -0200
From: Thiago A. Corrêa <thiago.correa@...il.com>
To: Haavard Skinnemoen <haavard.skinnemoen@...el.com>
Cc: Andrew Victor <avictor.za@...il.com>, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
kernel@...32linux.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3 v2] at91/atmel-mci: inclusion of sd/mmc driver in
at91sam9g45 chip and board
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Haavard Skinnemoen
<haavard.skinnemoen@...el.com> wrote:
> Andrew Victor <avictor.za@...il.com> wrote:
>> > +static struct mci_platform_data __initdata mci0_data = {
>> > + .slot[0] = {
>> > + .bus_width = 4,
>> > + .detect_pin = AT91_PIN_PD10,
>> > + .wp_pin = -1,
>> > + },
>>
>> Causes at91_set_gpio_input() to be called for pin -1. Which shouldn't be valid.
>> AT91 platforms use 0 to indicate an un-connected GPIO pin, so the
>> assignment of "wp_pin" should probably just be removed.
>
> The mci driver expects non-existent pins to have a negative value, as
> do all other drivers which use gpio_is_valid().
>
Then I think it would be best to use GPIO_PIN_NONE. Makes it clear
what is expected and avoids confusion on what should be the proper
value.
I hope I'm not saying non-sense, but even if I am, I guess you can see
that I'm advocating against the magic numbers :)
Kind Regards,
Thiago A. Correa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists