From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755987Ab1G2KHN (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jul 2011 06:07:13 -0400 Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:39045 "EHLO mail-wy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755413Ab1G2KHL convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jul 2011 06:07:11 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4E314562.2000001@imgtec.com> References: <1311851023-3563-1-git-send-email-shashidharh@vayavyalabs.com> <4E314562.2000001@imgtec.com> Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 11:07:09 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mmc: Fixed bug in IDMAC_SET_BUFFER1_SIZE Macro in dw_mmc.c From: Will Newton To: James Hogan Cc: Shashidhar Hiremath , Will Newton , Kyungmin Park , linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Chris Ball Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:17 PM, James Hogan wrote: > On 07/28/2011 12:03 PM, Shashidhar Hiremath wrote: >> The mask used inside this macro was assuming Buffer_Size1's[BS1's] width to be 14 bits, >> it is actually of 13 bits, Modified masks used in IDMAC_SET_BUFFER1_SIZE such that >> they use only 13 bits instead of current 14. >> >> Signed-off-by: Shashidhar Hiremath >> --- >>  drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c |    2 +- >>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c >> index 77f0b6b..f13bb49 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c >> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc.c >> @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ struct idmac_desc { >> >>       u32             des1;   /* Buffer sizes */ >>  #define IDMAC_SET_BUFFER1_SIZE(d, s) \ >> -     ((d)->des1 = ((d)->des1 & 0x03ffc000) | ((s) & 0x3fff)) >> +     ((d)->des1 = ((d)->des1 & 0x03ffe000) | ((s) & 0x1fff)) >> >>       u32             des2;   /* buffer 1 physical address */ >> > > Yes, according to the TRM you appear to be correct > > Reviewed-by: James Hogan Yes, looks correct to me too (for some reason I didn't get the original mail). Acked-by: Will Newton