Hi,
On Sunday 04 September 2016 07:51 PM, Jagan Teki wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Vignesh R <vigne...@ti.com> wrote:
[...]
>> @@ -23,6 +23,8 @@ DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR;
>> #define QSPI_TIMEOUT 2000000
>> #define QSPI_FCLK 192000000
>> #define QSPI_DRA7XX_FCLK 76800000
>> +#define QSPI_WLEN_MAX_BITS 128
>> +#define QSPI_WLEN_MAX_BYTES (QSPI_WLEN_MAX_BITS >> 3)
>> /* clock control */
>> #define QSPI_CLK_EN BIT(31)
>> #define QSPI_CLK_DIV_MAX 0xffff
>> @@ -230,13 +232,33 @@ static int __ti_qspi_xfer(struct ti_qspi_priv *priv,
>> unsigned int bitlen,
>> #ifdef CONFIG_AM43XX
>> udelay(100);
>> #endif
>> - while (words--) {
>> + while (words) {
>> + u8 xfer_len = 0;
>> +
>> if (txp) {
>> - debug("tx cmd %08x dc %08x data %02x\n",
>> - priv->cmd | QSPI_WR_SNGL, priv->dc, *txp);
>> - writel(*txp++, &priv->base->data);
>> - writel(priv->cmd | QSPI_WR_SNGL,
>> - &priv->base->cmd);
>> + u32 cmd = priv->cmd;
>
> Don't we require cmd mask for WLEN_MAX_BITS?
>
Its not quite necessary. priv->cmd always has WLEN field set to 0x7
(8bit) where as for 128bit write WLEN is to be set to 0x7F. Therefore
the logic
+ cmd |= QSPI_WLEN(QSPI_WLEN_MAX_BITS);
will still work w/o needing to clear WLEN field using a mask. But
anyways, to avoid confusion, I will add a mask for WLEN_MAX_BITS.
--
Regards
Vignesh
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
