This is the mail archive of the ecos-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the eCos project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Intel FLASH


> perhaps folks would migrate to the new driver).  On the other hand,
> this driver is no longer Intel and/or strata specific (although it
> supports those parts), so how would a newcomer know that this driver
> might be more appropriate than, for example the 28Fxxx driver?  It's a
> judgement call.

Well the 28fxxx supports at least a sharp part. Intel flash is mostly
synonymous with CFI flash from my limited knowledge in this area. When
it is generic enough it can be moved out of the intel dir of course.
Although the ecos maintainers' take on the issue is welcome :)

> Now for some good, old fashioned, controversy.  :-)
You're right, our dialog was getting boring :)

> I deliberately did not fold in your changes for
> CYGNUM_FLASH_BASE_MASK.  My understanding of that parameter is that it
> exists to cope with oversized devices fitted with some high address

My understanding is that the mask is used to get the first address of a
chip (&ROM[0]) and that was the address clear_status, erase, lock etc
commands were issued to, that is before the changes which directed the
commands to specific blocks went in. So now it is still used in
program_buf
Other flash drivers use it for the same purpose if I'm not mmistaken, so
it is not used to tell how large the flash is but how large a separately
commanded part is.I think. So if I have 2 parts in series and I keep
clearing the first one (if the mask spans both) that's not correct
although it might work. I think that overfitting check uses the same
define but it should use another which can be turned off separately.
Otherwise on the edb7xxx where there are 2 parts in series and are made
contiguous using the MMU there's either no way of correctly commanding
the second or it gets cut off by this check depending on whether the
mask is set for one or both chips.

I'd like to have a separate option for this. What do others (Gary,Mark)
say?

Also could you put in strata.h the nomenclature changes I sent in my
first patch? C3 is not strata etc, those names are not what intel calls
them. Thanks

Jani


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]