Haavard Skinnemoen wrote: > Mark Jackson <mpfj-l...@mimc.co.uk> wrote: >> Haavard Skinnemoen wrote: >>> Possibly, but NGW100 is the only one which I've seen reports about. >>> STK1000 is safe since it doesn't use the CFI driver. >> I did kinda report this in the thread "JFFS2 scanning bug", and >> the "triple-revert" patch you posted on 26/05/09 16:58 appeared >> to fix it. > > Ah...so it breaks JFFS2 as well? I doubt that changing the environment > address fixes that... > >> Since this didn't change any board files (only the core CFI files) >> I guess I assumed this "revert" would work its way upstream and I >> wouldn't have to change anything. > > Hmm, yeah, maybe I should post the revert again. > > I have to admit I'm completely confused about how u-boot deals with > virtual and physical addresses these days. It used to expose only > physical addresses through external interfaces, but now it looks like > it's a bit of both, and it's impossible to tell which goes where. > >> Shall I just submit a patch to fix the mimc200 board in the same way >> as your NGW100 patch ? > > Yes, that will probably be a good idea if it has the same problem with > saveenv.
Okay ... looks like there are 2 problems revolving round CFI. (1) saveenv (2) jffs2 The CONFIG_ENV_ADDR patch fixes (1) but *not* (2). The "triple-revert" patch fixes both (1) and (2). Not quite sure how to proceed from here. For the time being, I'll go down the "triple-revert" patch route until something better pops up !! Regards Mark _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
