Chris Blazie wrote:
>
> > Yep. r0 looks 100% correct.
> >
> > > I remember someone else reporting a freeze when the MMU is
> > > switched on (SA1110 also). Any ideas?
> >
> > How are you debugging this? If you're using a debugger, then I can
> > imagine you loosing control of the debugger at this point.
>
> I'm using the (SA1100) debug routines in debug-armv.S. It looks
> like they're set up to work with or without the MMU. printch fails after
> the MMU is enabled (and following the 3 noops).
>
Correct me if I am wrong, but if you look at the code in 'debug-armv.S' it
does not seem to be right:
#elif defined(CONFIG_ARCH_SA1100)
.macro addruart,rx
mrc p15, 0, \rx, c1, c0
tst \rx, #1 @ MMU enabled?
moveq \rx, #0x80000000 @ physical base address
movne \rx, #0xf8000000 @ virtual address
If you will notice, after we see if the MMU is enabled, we perform the
test and if it is equal to one, we load in the PHYSICAL address instead
of the virtual address. I think the lines are out of order. It should
read:
#elif defined(CONFIG_ARCH_SA1100)
.macro addruart,rx
mrc p15, 0, \rx, c1, c0
tst \rx, #1 @ MMU enabled?
movne \rx, #0xf8000000 @ virtual address
moveq \rx, #0x80000000 @ physical base address
Is that correct?
-Steve
--
Steven J. Hill - Embedded SW Engineer
Public Key: 'finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]'
FPR1: E124 6E1C AF8E 7802 A815
FPR2: 7D72 829C 3386 4C4A E17D
unsubscribe: body of `unsubscribe linux-arm' to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
++ Please use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for ++
++ kernel-related discussions. ++
