Hi Eric,
On 25.03.2012 12:32, Stefano Babic wrote:
On 24/03/2012 23:36, Eric Nelson wrote:
Hi Stefano,
Hi Eric,
Sorry I let this linger.
On 03/17/2012 03:50 AM, Stefano Babic wrote:
On 03/03/2012 23:37, Eric Nelson wrote:
Signed-off-by: Eric Nelson<eric.nel...@boundarydevices.com>
---
Hi Eric,
I have added Andy in CC as MMC Maintainer
drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c | 12 +++++++++++-
1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c b/drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c
index a2f35e3..8e4bcef 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c
@@ -190,6 +190,8 @@ static int esdhc_setup_data(struct mmc *mmc,
struct mmc_data *data)
esdhc_clrsetbits32(®s->wml, WML_RD_WML_MASK, wml_value);
esdhc_write32(®s->dsaddr, (u32)data->dest);
} else {
+
flush_dcache_range((ulong)data->src,(ulong)data->src+data->blocks*data->blocksize);
This breaks PowerPC boards.
Can you tell me how?
./MAKEALL MPC8536DS
Configuring for MPC8536DS board...
fsl_esdhc.c: In function 'check_and_invalidate_dcache_range':
fsl_esdhc.c:255:19: warning: initialization makes integer from pointer
I get this building it for SabreLite, too. So any plans to update this
patch?
Many thanks and best regards
Dirk
without a cast [enabled by default]
drivers/mmc/libmmc.o: In function `esdhc_setup_data':
/home/stefano/Projects/imx/u-boot-imx/drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c:193:
undefined reference to `flush_dcache_range'
drivers/mmc/libmmc.o: In function `check_and_invalidate_dcache_range':
/home/stefano/Projects/imx/u-boot-imx/drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c:258:
undefined reference to `invalidate_dcache_range'
make: *** [u-boot] Fehler 1
Main reason is that PowerPC (this is a PowerQuickIII) has a "snooping"
mechanism, and it is enough to set a bit in the SOC to make things working.
Maybe can we add these functions as empty in 85xx ? Or we can add an
intermediate layer in fsl_eshc.h that manage this, such as
fsl_esdhc_flush_dcache_range. This was already done to solve the
endianess problem (PowerPC is big endian).
Andy, what do you think about ?
AFAIK, blocksize needs to be a multiple of 512 so this should be
cache-safe with
any cacheline size.
Yes, I think your changes are correct in the i.MX case.
Best regards,
Stefano
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot