Am Thursday 13 May 2010 14:38:07 schrieben Sie:
> >> Right, I came to the same conclusion based on chip I'm using for the
> >> Musicpal model. Working on a proper fix - now that I think to have found
> >> a solution for the XIP vs. mode switch conflict.
nice :) i'll try it as soon as it's ready.
>
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Michael Walle wrote:
>>> Am Thursday 13 May 2010 09:38:43 schrieb Jan Kiszka:
> But i noticed another minor bug. The cfi02 doesn't handle 'read flash id'
> on 16bit accesses correctly. It always returns 8 bit. I used something
> like
>
>
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Michael Walle wrote:
>> Am Thursday 13 May 2010 09:38:43 schrieb Jan Kiszka:
But i noticed another minor bug. The cfi02 doesn't handle 'read flash id'
on 16bit accesses correctly. It always returns 8 bit. I used something
like
if (width == 2)
re
Michael Walle wrote:
> Am Thursday 13 May 2010 09:38:43 schrieb Jan Kiszka:
>>> But i noticed another minor bug. The cfi02 doesn't handle 'read flash id'
>>> on 16bit accesses correctly. It always returns 8 bit. I used something
>>> like
>>>
>>> if (width == 2)
>>> ret = pfl->ident[0] << 8 | pf
Am Thursday 13 May 2010 09:38:43 schrieb Jan Kiszka:
> > But i noticed another minor bug. The cfi02 doesn't handle 'read flash id'
> > on 16bit accesses correctly. It always returns 8 bit. I used something
> > like
> >
> > if (width == 2)
> > ret = pfl->ident[0] << 8 | pfl->ident[1]; /* rsp. i
Michael Walle wrote:
> Am Wednesday 12 May 2010 09:56:31 schrieb Jan Kiszka:
>> OK, that was a hard nut. After various dead ends, I think I found an
>> possible solution. Can you give this a try?
> [..]
>> Still requires proper patch split up, and I need to think about possible
>> side effects.
> T
Am Wednesday 12 May 2010 09:56:31 schrieb Jan Kiszka:
> OK, that was a hard nut. After various dead ends, I think I found an
> possible solution. Can you give this a try?
[..]
> Still requires proper patch split up, and I need to think about possible
> side effects.
Thanks, the patch is working.
B
Michael Walle wrote:
> [sorry didn't see the CC to the mailinglist]
>
> Am Friday 23 April 2010 09:23:49 schrieb Jan Kiszka:
>> Michael Walle wrote:
>>> Hi Jan,
>>>
>>> your commit "Optimize consecutive CFI02 writes by remapping memory
>>> lazily" breaks the code execution from flash.
>>>
>>> If y
[sorry didn't see the CC to the mailinglist]
Am Friday 23 April 2010 09:23:49 schrieb Jan Kiszka:
> Michael Walle wrote:
> > Hi Jan,
> >
> > your commit "Optimize consecutive CFI02 writes by remapping memory
> > lazily" breaks the code execution from flash.
> >
> > If you write to the flash, the
Michael Walle wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> your commit "Optimize consecutive CFI02 writes by remapping memory lazily"
> breaks the code execution from flash.
>
> If you write to the flash, the flash will switch into I/O mode. Now if code
> is
> executed from this flash, a cpu_abort will be raised ("Tr
10 matches
Mail list logo
