From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:05:25 +0100
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] CFI support for Versatile & Integrator/CP boards
In-Reply-To: <44049AA3.2090800@lucent.com>
References: <CAM-OWA1XvpFVjCRGry00000004@cam-owa1.Emea.Arm.com> <200602281024.13958.sr@denx.de> <44049AA3.2090800@lucent.com>
Message-ID: <200602282005.25909.sr@denx.de>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Hi Marcus,

On Tuesday, 28. February 2006 19:46, Marcus Hall wrote:
> > Could you and others (Marcus, Tolunay) please comment on what patch
> > should be applied here. I tend to take the patch from Marcus right now.
>
> Well, there are two variables here.  I will abstract it to be
> 	Timeout	:: flash_status_check returns != ERR_OK
> 	Fail :: status != FLASH_STATUS_DONE
> The following table should correspond to what gets returned by either
> code patch:
>
> Timeout  Fail	Marcus		Peter
> 0	  0	ERR_OK		ERR_OK
> 0	  1	ERR_INVAL	ERR_INVAL
> 1	  0	ERR_TIMEOUT	ERR_INVAL
> 1	  1	ERR_TIMEOUT	ERR_INVAL
>
> Additionally, Peter's patch may output an additional error message after
> a timeout if it appears that some error flags are set (but they are not
> necessarily valid if the flash has timed out)
>
> So, I believe that either would work to ensure that if there is an error
> it does get reported, but I believe that my patch returns a more useful
> return code and doesn't output potentially confusing error messages.

Thanks for the detailed statement. Your (Marcus's) patch has been integrated.

Best regards,
Stefan