ons 2009-01-07 klockan 21:42 +0100 skrev Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD: > On 21:37 Wed 07 Jan , Ulf Samuelsson wrote: > > ons 2009-01-07 klockan 02:11 +0100 skrev Jean-Christophe > > PLAGNIOL-VILLARD: > > > Ulf & Pink Boy > > > > > > please take a look on > > > > > > http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot/u-boot-at91.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/mm > > > > > > > You are aware that moving from the Atmel flash driver to the CFI > > driver means that the board support is now totally broken im > > u-boot-at91.git? > what do you mean the current tree is working if you have a bug please create a > bug report
I do not have any details. I have heard from customers that they tried the CFI driver and it did not work so they reverted to the DK flash driver. This was some time ago, and I do not follow the development of the CFI driver, since I have little (none) interest in CFI flash. I do not know if there are any conditions to be met, for problems to occur. I am just cautioning you that a basic test might not be enough. Pink Boy mentioned that he had to patch the driver due to a problem with buffered write which is not functional on the AT49BV642D flash on the EK even thoough the part reports it to be functional. You should discuss with him. Maybe there are others which knows more. Note that the EK has been delivered with an older flash as well, AT49BV6416 and there may be a lot of board out there which has this chip. If someone rebuilds u-boot for the board and loads it and the memory routine does not work then there will be some people which will be very disappointed. If someone remotedly upgrades u-boot, and then later finds that a certain percentage of the boards will fail due to a buggy boot monitor then it is really no good. I think you need to get a board with the 6416 if you do not have it to test -or add a config option so that you can select which flash routine you should use. Don't misunderstand me. Having the CFI flash routine will of course make it possible to use u-boot for a lot of other flash chips. > > The flash chips on the DK and the EK report > > themselves to be CFI compliant, but are not. > They are CFI compliant > I've test on my ek > > > > It is a much better idea to make a new AT91RM9200 board > > (at91rm9200pf?) *with* CFI than to break the board support > > for existing boards. > I'll not create a new board for boot option > > Best Regards, > J. > _______________________________________________ > U-Boot mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
