From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ezequiel Garcia Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/8] ARM: omap2: gpmc: Fix gpmc_cs_reserved() return value Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 14:01:52 -0300 Message-ID: <20130215170151.GC2442@localhost> References: <1360682305-20935-1-git-send-email-ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com> <1360682305-20935-4-git-send-email-ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mail.free-electrons.com ([94.23.35.102]:60598 "EHLO mail.free-electrons.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750967Ab3BORB6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Feb 2013 12:01:58 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Anil Kumar Cc: "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Tony Lindgren , Afzal Mohammed , Jon Hunter , Felipe Balbi Hi Anil, On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 09:49:21PM +0530, Anil Kumar wrote: > Hi, >=20 > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 8:48 PM, Ezequiel Garcia > wrote: > > Currently gpmc_cs_reserved() return value is somewhat inconsistent, > > returning a negative value on an error condition, a positive value > > if the chip select is reserved and zero if it's available. > > > > Fix this by returning a boolean value as the function name suggests= : > > * true if the chip select is reserved, > > * false if it's available > > > > Suggested-by: Felipe Balbi > > Signed-off-by: Ezequiel Garcia > > --- > > Changelog from v1: > > * As suggested by Felipe Balbi, fix return code to a boolean > > > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.= c > > index bd3bc93..fa4764f 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c > > @@ -452,10 +452,10 @@ static int gpmc_cs_set_reserved(int cs, int r= eserved) > > return 0; > > } > > > > -static int gpmc_cs_reserved(int cs) > > +static bool gpmc_cs_reserved(int cs) > > { > > if (cs > GPMC_CS_NUM) > > - return -ENODEV; > > + return true; > > > > return gpmc_cs_map & (1 << cs); > > } >=20 > commit "6797b4fe0e554ce71f47038fd929c9ca929a9f3c" > Marking all the chip-selects as reserved by default. >=20 > In this case gpmc_cs_map is 0xff. So it will return 0x1 if cs is 0. > So gpmc_cs_request() function will fail in nand (gpmc-nand.c) case. >=20 > I am taking reference, branch "omap-for-v3.9/gpmc" of git tree > http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tmlind/linux-omap.git >=20 > I am sorry if this question is very vague. >=20 If I understand correctly your concern, I believe you've missed this patch submitted by Jon Hunter and not yet merged: ARM: OMAP2+: Fix-up gpmc merge error With this patch every chip-select is cleared on gpmc_probe() as soon as GPMC driver initializes, and before we can request any NAND/NOR child. I hope this answers your question. =46eel free to test the series and send your Tested-by! Thanks, --=20 Ezequiel Garc=C3=ADa, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html