Re: [PATCH] leds-ot200: Fix misbehavior caused by wrong bit masks
From: Bryan Wu <hidden>
Date: 2013-02-15 22:47:32
Also in:
lkml, stable
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Christian Gmeiner [off-list ref] wrote:
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. Our customers can control LEDs from userspace via Java, C++ or what every. They have running/working applications where they want to control led_3 but led_2 get's used. I got a bug report in our in-house bug tracker so it would be great to fix this upstream. Signed-off-by: Christian Gmeiner <christian.gmeiner@gmail.com>
Thanks, Christian. And Andrew, are you going to take care of this patch? Or I will merge this. -Bryan
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
--- 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