Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | Christian Gmeiner <> | Subject | [PATCH 3/3] leds-ot200: Fix error caused by shifted mask | Date | Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:10:00 +0100 |
| |
During the development of this driver an in-house register documentation was used. The last weeks some integration tests were done and this problem was found. It turned out that the released register documentation is wrong.
The fix is very simple: shift all masks by one.
Signed-off-by: Christian Gmeiner <christian.gmeiner@gmail.com> --- drivers/leds/leds-ot200.c | 14 +++++++------- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/leds/leds-ot200.c b/drivers/leds/leds-ot200.c index ee14662..98cae52 100644 --- a/drivers/leds/leds-ot200.c +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-ot200.c @@ -47,37 +47,37 @@ static struct ot200_led leds[] = { { .name = "led_1", .port = 0x49, - .mask = BIT(7), + .mask = BIT(6), }, { .name = "led_2", .port = 0x49, - .mask = BIT(6), + .mask = BIT(5), }, { .name = "led_3", .port = 0x49, - .mask = BIT(5), + .mask = BIT(4), }, { .name = "led_4", .port = 0x49, - .mask = BIT(4), + .mask = BIT(3), }, { .name = "led_5", .port = 0x49, - .mask = BIT(3), + .mask = BIT(2), }, { .name = "led_6", .port = 0x49, - .mask = BIT(2), + .mask = BIT(1), }, { .name = "led_7", .port = 0x49, - .mask = BIT(1), + .mask = BIT(0), } }; -- 1.7.12.2.421.g261b511
| |