On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 09:18 +0200, Cousson, Benoit wrote: > On 4/1/2011 8:52 AM, Coelho, Luciano wrote: > > The order in which the MMC cards are defined in the the 4430sdp board > > file seems to have been mistakenly reorderded as part of an unrelated > > patch. In commit 0005ae73cfe44ee42d0be12a12cc82bf982f518e, where only > > the dev_name was supposed to be changed, the mmc order was changed as > > well. This caused the external SD card reader not to be recognized, > > at least on Blaze. > > > > This patch reverts this change so that the external SD card is > > recognized again. > > > > Cc: Kishore Kadiyala<kishore.kadiy...@ti.com> > > Cc: Benoit Cousson<b-cous...@ti.com> > > Signed-off-by: Luciano Coelho<coe...@ti.com> > > --- > > > > I have started investigating the cause for this problem, because it > > seems to me that the value in the mmc element is what should matter, > > but it doesn't seem to be the case. I believe there is a bug > > elsewhere, that causes the order of the array to matter, but I'm not > > very familiar with hsmmc and I don't have much time right now to delve > > into the problem, so I leave this to the omap people. ;) I can always > > help testing if necessary. > > I was about to make the same comment. Why does the order matter since we > have a .mmc field with that information? There is probably something > broken behind that.
That's my impression too. From a bird's eye view, it seems that this change should have worked. But there's a bug somewhere, so it doesn't. :( -- Cheers, Luca. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
