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] |
FWIW, here is the version of the Intel code I've been using for the last week. At some point (reasonably soon) I would like some feedback so I can send it out one more time with a "Here is a patch for the Intel Flash, please apply it" message. As always, questions, comments, and snide remarks are welcome. --wpd > -----Original Message----- > From: Jani Monoses [mailto:jani@iv.ro] > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 5:41 AM > To: ecos-patches@sources.redhat.com > Subject: Re: Intel FLASH > > > > > Looking at this a little more closely, I see that the only > other place > > that CYGNUM_FLASH_BASE_MASK is used in my patched version of the > > driver is in'flash_program_buf()'. Looking at that a little more > > closely, I just noticed that it is passed a 'block_mask' parameter, > > which is initialized to: > > > > ~(flash_info.block_size-1) > > > > in "io/flash/current/src/flash.c". Why don't I change > > 'flash_program_buf()' to use this parameter and confine the use of > > this mask to the description given in "strata.h". If folks would > > prefer that I use some name other'CYGNUM_FLASH_BASE_MASK' > in order to > > capture the notion of fitting oversized devices in a platform. > > Right, in program_buf instead of ROM using BA seems safe and > indeed the > macro can now be used for the oversized devices. >
Attachment:
st4.diff
Description: Binary data
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |