thanks for your reply. You are right, the format was totally wrong; I apologize! Concerning the patch itself: I agree: low-level hangups should trigger the watchdog although in this specific case the hangups will not occur due to a timeout construction surrounding it. Unfortunately I'm not able to investigate this any further To get this fix done: hopefully some u-boot-guru will do the dirty work...
Jaap On 01/31/2011 08:25 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 13:16:59 -0600 > Scott Wood<scottw...@freescale.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:05:55 +0100 >> Jaap de Jong<jaap.dej...@nedap.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> On my board (at91sam9263ek) I have enabled the watchdog. >>> It will reset the processor after about 16 seconds. >>> It looks like it is working but if I'm writing a large file into nand it >>> seems that the watchdog is not reset and finally my processor resets. >>> I've patched it, but I'm not sure if it is the right way to do it this >>> way... >> So far we've been putting the watchdog resets in higher-level >> functions. It looks like the block-skipping versions have them, but >> the non-block-skipping versions don't (and the former will call the >> latter if it doesn't see any bad blocks). >> >> So I think this should go in nand_read() and nand_write(). If things >> hang up inside the low-level wait that should trigger the watchdog. > Oh, and all patches require a sign-off, and the text above the patch > should be what is intended to go in the git changelog, with any > additional comments/greetings/etc below a "---" line. > > See http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/Patches > and also the Developer's Certificate of Origin in > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=blob;f=Documentation/SubmittingPatches;h=689e2371095cc5dfea9927120009341f369159aa;hb=HEAD > > -Scott > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
