Messages in this thread |  | | From | Christian Gmeiner <> | Date | Sun, 6 Jan 2013 19:12:14 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] leds-ot200: Fix error caused by shifted mask |
| |
ping -- Christian Gmeiner, MSc
2012/12/17 Christian Gmeiner <christian.gmeiner@gmail.com>: > 2012/12/13 Christian Gmeiner <christian.gmeiner@gmail.com>: >>> 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 c464682..676e729 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), >>> } >>> }; >>> >>> -- >>> 1.7.10.4 >>> >> >> Is something missing to get this patch merged? >> -- >> Christian Gmeiner, MSc > > > ping > -- > Christian Gmeiner, MSc
|  |