This is the mail archive of the ecos-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the eCos project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
> > Now for some good, old fashioned, controversy. :-) > You're right, our dialog was getting boring :) > > > I deliberately did not fold in your changes for > > CYGNUM_FLASH_BASE_MASK. My understanding of that parameter > is that it > > exists to cope with oversized devices fitted with some high address > > My understanding is that the mask is used to get the first > address of a > chip (&ROM[0]) and that was the address clear_status, erase, lock etc > commands were issued to, that is before the changes which directed the > commands to specific blocks went in. So now it is still used in > program_buf > Other flash drivers use it for the same purpose if I'm not > mmistaken, so > it is not used to tell how large the flash is but how large a > separately > commanded part is.I think. So if I have 2 parts in series and I keep > clearing the first one (if the mask spans both) that's not correct > although it might work. I think that overfitting check uses the same > define but it should use another which can be turned off separately. > Otherwise on the edb7xxx where there are 2 parts in series > and are made > contiguous using the MMU there's either no way of correctly commanding > the second or it gets cut off by this check depending on whether the > mask is set for one or both chips. > Looking at this a little more closely, I see that the only other place that CYGNUM_FLASH_BASE_MASK is used in my patched version of the driver is in 'flash_program_buf()'. Looking at that a little more closely, I just noticed that it is passed a 'block_mask' parameter, which is initialized to: ~(flash_info.block_size-1) in "io/flash/current/src/flash.c". Why don't I change 'flash_program_buf()' to use this parameter and confine the use of this mask to the description given in "strata.h". If folks would prefer that I use some name other 'CYGNUM_FLASH_BASE_MASK' in order to capture the notion of fitting oversized devices in a platform. > I'd like to have a separate option for this. What do others > (Gary,Mark) > say? > > Also could you put in strata.h the nomenclature changes I sent in my > first patch? C3 is not strata etc, those names are not what > intel calls > them. Thanks Oops, somehow in my manually applying patches, I lost that. Is this more to your liking? (Did I miss another one someplace else?) > > Jani >
Attachment:
oops.diff
Description: Binary data
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |