On Mon, 4 Jan 2010, Magnus Lilja wrote: > Hi > > Magnus Lilja skrev: > > 2009/12/3 Guennadi Liakhovetski <l...@denx.de>: > >> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > >> > >>> Dear Guennadi, > >>> > >>> In message <1257965907-5622-1-git-send-email-lilja.mag...@gmail.com> > >>> Magnus Lilja wrote: > >>>> diff --git a/drivers/spi/mxc_spi.c b/drivers/spi/mxc_spi.c > >>>> index fad9840..8b5d4be 100644 > >>>> --- a/drivers/spi/mxc_spi.c > >>>> +++ b/drivers/spi/mxc_spi.c > >>>> @@ -142,6 +142,8 @@ int spi_xfer(struct spi_slave *slave, unsigned int > >>>> bitlen, const void *dout, > >>>> *(u8 *)din = data; > >>>> else if (bitlen < 17) > >>>> *(u16 *)din = data; > >>>> + else > >>>> + *in_l = data; > >>>> } > >>>> } > >>> Could you please comment ? > >> Hm, I'm afraid, I broke more than just that. Now that I look at this loop, > >> looks like I broke not only 32-bit transfers, but also all transfers with > >> bitlen > 16, and this fix is then incomplete - it doesn't fix cases with > >> bitlen > 32. Magnus, looks like you also only use single-block (bitlen=32) > >> transfers? Do you have a chance to test > 32-bit transfers too? > > > > No, I don't have anything suitable on the SPI bus that would allow me > > to test > 32-bit transfer. > > > So, what was the verdict? I can only test SPI with the ATLAS (32 bit xfers). > > Can the patch be accepted even though it doesn't fix all problems or > does it have to a "fix-everything"-patch?
I would prefer a proper fix, or an explicit restriction on transfer length. Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. Freelance Open-Source Software Developer http://www.open-technology.de/ _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
