[U-Boot] [PATCH] mmc: fsl_esdhc fix register offset

[Marek Vasut]

On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 03:17:00 AM, Peng Fan wrote:
> Hi, Marek
> 
> On 3/11/2015 10:03 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 01:58:37 AM, Peng Fan wrote:
> >> Hi, Marek
> > 
> > Hi!
> > 
> >> On 3/10/2015 9:45 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 08:35:46 AM, Peng Fan wrote:
> >>>> Commit f022d36e8a4517b2a9d25ff2d75bd2459d0c68b1 introduces
> >>>> error register offset.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Change the "char reserved3[59]" to "char reserved3[56]".
> >>>> 
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <Peng.Fan at freescale.com>
> >>> 
> >>> This should probably be applied to 2015.04 .
> >>> 
> >>> What are the symptoms of this bug please ?
> >> 
> >> I just found the reserved3 size is wrong, did not do test.
> >> 
> >>   From the driver, only the entry 'scr' of fsl_esdhc below reserved3 is
> >> 
> >> used, so the offset of scr is wrong if using `char reserved3[59]`
> > 
> > Uh, is the patch tested at all on real hardware ?
> 
> Still not test on real hardware. From commit
> f022d36e8a4517b2a9d25ff2d75bd2459d0c68b1,
> "
>          uint    adsaddr;        /* ADMA system address register */
> -       char    reserved2[160]; /* reserved */
> +       char    reserved2[100]; /* reserved */
> +       uint    vendorspec;     /* Vendor Specific register */
> +       char    reserved3[59];  /* reserved */
>          uint    hostver;        /* Host controller version register */
> "
> It's clear that 160 bytes does not equal with (100 + 4 + 59)bytes.

Hi!

I agree with the change, I'm just not very impressed by patches that are
completely untested. If you could do a quick boot on some machine before
sending, that'd be nice.

Best regards,
Marek Vasut