RE: Intel FLASH

["Doyle, Patrick" <WPD at dtccom dot com>]

FWIW, here is the version of the Intel code I've been using for the last
week.  At some point (reasonably soon) I would like some feedback so I can
send it out one more time with a "Here is a patch for the Intel Flash,
please apply it" message.

As always, questions, comments, and snide remarks are welcome.
--wpd


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jani Monoses [mailto:jani@iv.ro] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 5:41 AM
> To: ecos-patches@sources.redhat.com
> Subject: Re: Intel FLASH
> 
> 
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Right, in program_buf instead of ROM using BA seems safe and 
> indeed the
> macro can now be used for the oversized devices.
>

Attachment: st4.diff
Description: Binary data