From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sami Kantoluoto Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 16:59:51 +0300 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] MCI support for AT91 family processors. In-Reply-To: <20090831113926.GB4237@pc-ras4041.res.insa> References: <200908291743.n7THhKbV019414@karhu.embedtronics.fi> <20090829230827.GE4150@pc-ras4041.res.insa> <20090831112247.GH16004@embedtronics.fi> <20090831113926.GB4237@pc-ras4041.res.insa> Message-ID: <20090901135951.GC14173@embedtronics.fi> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 01:39:26PM +0200, Albin Tonnerre wrote: > On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 02:22:47PM +0300, Sami Kantoluoto wrote : > > On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 01:08:27AM +0200, Albin Tonnerre wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 08:18:32PM +0300, Sami Kantoluoto wrote : > > > > Fixed to parse CSD correctly on little endian processors as gcc orders > > > > bitfields differently between big and little endian ones. > > > > > > Please also see this patch, which will fix those bugs as weel, while switching > > > to the new GENRIC_MMC API: > > > http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2009-August/059456.html > > > I'd highly appreciate if you could test it, to get some feedback > > > > Thanks, I'll test when I get some time later this week but I think (by > > reading the patch so I probably missed something) it won't solve the CSD > > problem. The real reason of the "CSD problem" of course is that how the > > mmc_csd structure is defined (host byte order not taken in account or > > at least how gcc handles bitfields). > > > > drivers/mmc/mmc.c does not actually use the bitfield to parse the csd struct, > and got fixed a while back to work no matter what endianness you're using, so it > should solve it anyway. I just tested the patch (+ your at91_mci patch + my new patches) and this seems to work just find. Thanks! Best Regards, -sk