On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 08:36:14AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 08/28/2011 10:33 PM, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote: > >On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 06:43:36PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > >> cfi02 is annoying in that is ignores some address bits; we probably > >> want explicit support in the memory API for that. > >> > >> In order to get the correct opaque into the MemoryRegion object, the > >> allocation scheme is changed so that the flash emulation code allocates > >> memory, instead of the caller. This clears a FIXME in the flash code. > > > >Hi Avi, > > > >Something is going wrong with the flash devices. It can be reproduced > >with the microblaze image on the wiki, you'll see the kernel complain > >with: > >pflash_write: Unimplemented flash cmd sequence (offset 00000000, wcycle 0x0 > >cmd 0x0 value 0xf0) > >of-flash a0000000.flash: do_map_probe() failed > > > >When it should be saying: > >a0000000.flash: Found 1 x8 devices at 0x0 in 8-bit bank. Manufacturer ID > >0x000000 Chip ID 0x000000 > >Intel/Sharp Extended Query Table at 0x0031 > > > > > > I get exactly the same behaviour with upstream - 9f94778. With what > version does it work correctly?
Im on a slightly patched tree, will try clean upstream versions. Maybe the flashes never worked with that board in upstream... :/ Cheers
