Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1 0/1] xilinx_spips dummy bytes fix

[Alistair Francis]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Alistair Francis  wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 7:18 AM, Sai Pavan Boddu
>  wrote:
>> For zynq-7000 boards, we saw issues when u-boot/linux accessing the qspi.
>> Issue is due to wrong dummy byte transfers for few of un-handled commands 
>> ex: 0x9F, 0x6, 0xe9, 0x4, 0x18, etc
>> There are many unhandled commands which do not require dummy bytes but they 
>> can be followed by address cycles.
>>
>> To fix this issue for above commands, the next upcoming tx bytes are not 
>> considered dummies rather sent to slave directly.
>>
>> Sai Pavan Boddu (1):
>>   xilinx_spips: send dummy only if cmd requires it
>
> I don't see this patch on the list, I only see the cover letter.
>
> Do other see it?

Never mind, it just came through.

Alistair

>
> Alistair
>
>>
>>  hw/ssi/xilinx_spips.c | 13 ++---
>>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> --
>> 2.7.4
>>
>>

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1 0/1] xilinx_spips dummy bytes fix

[Alistair Francis]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 7:18 AM, Sai Pavan Boddu
 wrote:
> For zynq-7000 boards, we saw issues when u-boot/linux accessing the qspi.
> Issue is due to wrong dummy byte transfers for few of un-handled commands ex: 
> 0x9F, 0x6, 0xe9, 0x4, 0x18, etc
> There are many unhandled commands which do not require dummy bytes but they 
> can be followed by address cycles.
>
> To fix this issue for above commands, the next upcoming tx bytes are not 
> considered dummies rather sent to slave directly.
>
> Sai Pavan Boddu (1):
>   xilinx_spips: send dummy only if cmd requires it

I don't see this patch on the list, I only see the cover letter.

Do other see it?

Alistair

>
>  hw/ssi/xilinx_spips.c | 13 ++---
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.7.4
>
>

[Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1 0/1] xilinx_spips dummy bytes fix

[Sai Pavan Boddu]

For zynq-7000 boards, we saw issues when u-boot/linux accessing the qspi.
Issue is due to wrong dummy byte transfers for few of un-handled commands ex: 
0x9F, 0x6, 0xe9, 0x4, 0x18, etc
There are many unhandled commands which do not require dummy bytes but they can 
be followed by address cycles.

To fix this issue for above commands, the next upcoming tx bytes are not 
considered dummies rather sent to slave directly.

Sai Pavan Boddu (1):
  xilinx_spips: send dummy only if cmd requires it

 hw/ssi/xilinx_spips.c | 13 ++---
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

-- 
2.7.4