* Wolfgang Denk | 2008-07-16 00:05:20 [+0200]:
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>>
>> That command needs to be in little endian format on BE machines
>> with CFG_WRITE_SWAPPED_DATA. Without this patch, the command 0xf0
>> gets saved on stack as 0x00 00 00 f0 and 0x00 gets written into
>
>On stack?
Yes. We refer to the command via &cmd and therefore it will be saved on
the stack. Did I miss phrase myself or is this about something else?
>> @@ -306,16 +306,21 @@ static void flash_make_cmd(flash_info_t *info, u32
>> cmd, void *cmdbuf)
>> int i;
>> int cword_offset;
>> int cp_offset;
>> + int cmd_le;
>> uchar val;
>> uchar *cp = (uchar *) cmdbuf;
>>
>> + cmd_le = cpu_to_le32(cmd);
>
>This bloats code size for cases where it is not needed.
I assumed this will be optimized away in the non needed-case and I tried
not use that much of ifdefs.
>You seem to be focussing one one specific system configuration only,
>but there are 4 possible situations that need to be handled:
>
>- BE without CFG_WRITE_SWAPPED_DATA
That is Stefan's box, code worked before, remained untouched should
still work.
>- BE with CFG_WRITE_SWAPPED_DATA
That is mine box, works after this patch.
>- LE without CFG_WRITE_SWAPPED_DATA
In that case, cpu_to_le32 is a null-macro, the code is the same like
before my patch, should work.
>- LE with CFG_WRITE_SWAPPED_DATA
That one could be broken. Hmmm. Okay, I take the old code (before
expanding char -> long) take a look how the commands are expanded,
compare with what I have now and let you know.
>I don't think you handle all for of them correctly.
>
>> for (i = info->portwidth; i > 0; i--){
>> cword_offset = (info->portwidth-i)%info->chipwidth;
>> #if defined(__LITTLE_ENDIAN) || defined(CFG_WRITE_SWAPPED_DATA)
>> cp_offset = info->portwidth - i;
>> - val = *((uchar*)&cmd + cword_offset);
>> + val = *((uchar*)&cmd_le + cword_offset);
>> #else
>> cp_offset = i - 1;
>> + /* we rely here on the fact, that cmd _has_ to be in BE
>> + * order because we are not __LITTLE_ENDIAN
>> + */
>> val = *((uchar*)&cmd + sizeof(u32) - cword_offset - 1);
>
>Hm... we are BE, because we are not LE.
>
>Sounds kind of obvious to me?
Technically we still could run on PDP :)
>[Nitpick: incorrect multiline comment style]
Ack, but since this comment is obvious I get rid of it anyway.
>Wolfgang Denk
Sebastian
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
U-Boot-Users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users
