Re: Issues with a Doc Milplus

Nicolas Pouillon
2004-10-01T14:27:12Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1386 bytes --]

[Fri, 01 Oct 2004 14:57:45 +0100]
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> eut le bonheur d'écrire:

> Hmmm. We should probably use -1 for 'unconfigured' instead of zero.
> Want to provide a patch accordingly?

I could do so, but it could break current configs where 0 meant "probing
at prelisted addresses"... (but users should read docs anyway ;))

> > 2/ It was not known by nan_ids, I had to add the following line:
> > {"NAND 64MiB 3,3V", 0xa5, 26, 0x4000, 0},
>
> Are you sure that's a 64MiB chip?

In CE, there are 32Mib for system rom, and 32Mib for user, and chip is
alone on the board, so yes it is 64. I have chip ref somewhere if it can
help...

> > Could one chip be virtually two 32MiB chips ?
>
> I think that might actually be the case for the 64MiB DiskOnChip M+,
> yes.

Right then, it explains both points. I'll declare it as a 32Mib chip in
list.

[mmio - readb/writeb]
> If provide that in 'diff -u' form we can change that too.

Hm, there is already #ifdef-ing using
-32bit mmio for __arm__
-16bit mmio for __ppc__
-readb/writeb else.
I read other PDA's config based on the same arch (Xscale), where it
seems to work. This issue seems quite "local" to my works, could this be
a side effect of something else ?

I'll submit a patch for these.

--
Nipo <nipo@ssji.net>
Gnu-PGP: 1024D/1DBF658F
http://nipo.ssji.net/nipo.asc

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]