From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: thiago.correa@gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Thiago_A=2E_Corr=EAa?=)
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:53:26 -0200
Subject: [PATCH 3/3 v2] at91/atmel-mci: inclusion of sd/mmc driver in
	at91sam9g45 chip and board
In-Reply-To: <20091028083548.38f1d80c@hskinnemoen-d830>
References: <acfa557032a93e2d3186981b16f7048a5a31028a.1256314995.git.nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
	<20090930155557.7dae503b@hskinnemoen-d830>
	<a3b1332815576dc4d496937b8a5ab69d36818d00.1256314995.git.nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
	<cd73a99e0910271243x744c956bl598fef9fd4144840@mail.gmail.com>
	<20091028083548.38f1d80c@hskinnemoen-d830>
Message-ID: <d6cda7730910271753o54acfa04t1225de460083325f@mail.gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Haavard Skinnemoen
<haavard.skinnemoen@atmel.com> wrote:
> Andrew Victor <avictor.za@gmail.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