Hello Tatha,
Le 02/28/12 07:50, Tathagata Das a écrit :
Hi,
Attached is the updated kernel patch to support brcm47xx BCMA NAND flash.
I have used latest trunk source code to create this patch. I have tested it on
Netgear WNR3500Lv2.
Thanks to Florian and Hauke for their comments.
And thank you for your efforts on this, I am sorry, but I found a couple
of small issues in your patch, which I attached inline for easier
commenting:
9991-bcm47xx-bcma-nandflash.patch
diff -Naur a/arch/mips/bcm47xx/bus.c b/arch/mips/bcm47xx/bus.c
--- a/arch/mips/bcm47xx/bus.c 2012-02-17 16:34:21.000000000 +0530
+++ b/arch/mips/bcm47xx/bus.c 2012-02-23 18:22:17.000000000 +0530
@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
* BCM947xx nvram variable access
*
* Copyright (C) 2011 Hauke Mehrtens<ha...@hauke-m.de>
+ * Copyright (C) 2011-2012 Tathagata Das<tathag...@alumnux.com>
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
* under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
@@ -92,3 +93,9 @@
sflash->numblocks = scc->sflash.numblocks;
sflash->size = scc->sflash.size;
}
+
+void bcm47xx_nflash_struct_bcma_init(struct bcm47xx_nflash *nflash, struct
bcma_drv_cc *bcc)
+{
+ nflash->nflash_type = BCM47XX_BUS_TYPE_BCMA;
+ nflash->bcc = bcc;
+}
diff -Naur a/arch/mips/bcm47xx/nvram.c b/arch/mips/bcm47xx/nvram.c
--- a/arch/mips/bcm47xx/nvram.c 2012-02-17 16:34:22.000000000 +0530
+++ b/arch/mips/bcm47xx/nvram.c 2012-02-23 18:20:57.000000000 +0530
@@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
* Copyright (C) 2005 Broadcom Corporation
* Copyright (C) 2006 Felix Fietkau<n...@openwrt.org>
* Copyright (C) 2010-2011 Hauke Mehrtens<ha...@hauke-m.de>
+ * Copyright (C) 2011-2012 Tathagata Das<tathag...@alumnux.com>
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
* under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
@@ -21,6 +22,7 @@
#include<asm/mach-bcm47xx/nvram.h>
#include<asm/mach-bcm47xx/bcm47xx.h>
#include<asm/mach-bcm47xx/bus.h>
+#include<linux/mtd/bcm47xx_nand.h>
char nvram_buf[NVRAM_SPACE];
EXPORT_SYMBOL(nvram_buf);
@@ -159,6 +161,53 @@
return 0;
}
+static int early_nvram_init_nflash(void)
+{
+ struct nvram_header *header;
+ u32 off;
+ int ret;
+ int len;
+ u32 flash_size = bcm47xx_nflash.size;
+ u8 tmpbuf[NFL_SECTOR_SIZE];
+ int i;
+ u32 *src, *dst;
+
+ /* check if the struct is already initilized */
+ if (!flash_size)
+ return -1;
+
+ cfe_env = 0;
+
+ off = FLASH_MIN;
+ while (off<= flash_size) {
+ ret = bcma_nflash_read(bcm47xx_nflash.bcc, off,
NFL_SECTOR_SIZE, tmpbuf);
+ if (ret != NFL_SECTOR_SIZE) {
+ goto done;
+ }
The brackets here are not required.
+ header = (struct nvram_header *)tmpbuf;
+ if (header->magic == NVRAM_HEADER) {
+ goto found;
+ }
They are not required here too.
+ off<<= 1;
+ }
+
+ ret = -1;
+ goto done;
+
+found:
+ len = header->len;
+ header = (struct nvram_header *) KSEG1ADDR(NAND_FLASH1 + off);
+ src = (u32 *) header;
+ dst = (u32 *) nvram_buf;
+ for (i = 0; i< sizeof(struct nvram_header); i += 4)
+ *dst++ = *src++;
+ for (; i< len&& i< NVRAM_SPACE; i += 4)
+ *dst++ = *src++;
Did you have to do this because memcpy() did not work, due to byte access
instead of word access?
+ ret = 0;
+done:
+ return ret;
+}
+
[snip]
+
+/* Issue a nand flash command */
+static inline void bcma_nflash_cmd(struct bcma_drv_cc *cc, u32 opcode)
+{
+ bcma_cc_write32(cc, NAND_CMD_START, opcode);
+ bcma_cc_read32(cc, NAND_CMD_START);
+}
+
+/* Check offset and length */
+static int bcma_nflash_offset_is_valid(struct bcma_drv_cc *cc, u32 offset, u32
len, u32 mask)
+{
+ if ((offset& mask) != 0 || (len& mask) != 0) {
+ pr_err("%s(): Address is not aligned. offset: %x, len: %x, mask:
%x\n", __func__, offset, len, mask);
+ BUG_ON(1);
+ return 1;
+ }
a BUG_ON() here is a little hard, just the printk should be sufficient in case
someone is doing unaligned accesses.
+
+ if ((((offset + len)>> 20)> cc->nflash.size) ||
+ ((((offset + len)>> 20) == cc->nflash.size)&&
these two lines are equal to:
((offset + len)>> 20)>= cc->nflash.size
+ (((offset + len)& ((1<< 20) - 1)) != 0))) {
+ pr_err("%s(): Address is outside Flash memory region. offset: %x,
len: %x, mask: %x\n", __func__, offset, len, mask);
+ return 1;
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+}
Everything else is fine from my perspective otherwise.
Thank you.
--
Florian
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
