On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 5:10 AM, Stefano Babic sbabic@denx.de wrote:
On 06/03/2013 16:46, Otavio Salvador wrote:
This changes the code so in case an unkown value is passed it will return as invalid.
Signed-off-by: Otavio Salvador otavio@ossystems.com.br
Hi Otavio,
Changes in v3: None Changes in v2:
- Rework code to use a 'ret' variable (Fabio)
board/freescale/mx6qsabresd/mx6qsabresd.c | 11 +++++++---- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/board/freescale/mx6qsabresd/mx6qsabresd.c b/board/freescale/mx6qsabresd/mx6qsabresd.c index 65c4a1a..e556476 100644 --- a/board/freescale/mx6qsabresd/mx6qsabresd.c +++ b/board/freescale/mx6qsabresd/mx6qsabresd.c @@ -145,15 +145,18 @@ struct fsl_esdhc_cfg usdhc_cfg[3] = { int board_mmc_getcd(struct mmc *mmc) { struct fsl_esdhc_cfg *cfg = (struct fsl_esdhc_cfg *)mmc->priv;
int ret = 0; switch (cfg->esdhc_base) { case USDHC2_BASE_ADDR:
return !gpio_get_value(USDHC2_CD_GPIO);
ret = !gpio_get_value(USDHC2_CD_GPIO);I do not understand. Is there no "break" statement here ? ret will be overwritten then.
Good catch and this will indeed fail. I did the change when Fabio asked but did not test it. I will rework it and test, before sending new version of patchset.
case USDHC3_BASE_ADDR:
return !gpio_get_value(USDHC3_CD_GPIO);default:return 1; /* eMMC/uSDHC4 is always present */
ret = !gpio_get_value(USDHC3_CD_GPIO);case USDHC4_BASE_ADDR:ret = 1; /* eMMC/uSDHC4 is always present */ }return ret;}
int board_mmc_init(bd_t *bis)
Best regards, Stefano Babic
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: +49-8142-66989-53 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: sbabic@denx.de =====================================================================