From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?utf-8?Q?Beno=C3=AEt_Th=C3=A9baudeau?= Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 11:54:43 +0100 (CET) Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] mxc nand: Add support for i.MX5 In-Reply-To: <201301081138.39456.marex@denx.de> References: <1357637609-18663-1-git-send-email-marex@denx.de> <1006715218.53219.1357640664105.JavaMail.root@advansee.com> <201301081138.39456.marex@denx.de> Message-ID: <367249486.60865.1357642483737.JavaMail.root@advansee.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Dear Marek Vasut, On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 11:38:39 AM, Marek Vasut wrote: > Dear Beno?t Th?baudeau, > > > Dear Marek Vasut, > > > > On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 10:33:29 AM, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] mxc nand: Add support for i.MX5 > > > > Where is the 2/2? > > Nowhere, it's a typo. OK. > > > From: Beno?t Th?baudeau > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Beno?t Th?baudeau > > > Cc: Scott Wood > > > Cc: Stefano Babic > > > --- > > > > > > arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx5/imx-regs.h | 9 ++ > > > drivers/mtd/nand/mxc_nand.c | 219 > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++-------- > > > include/fsl_nfc.h | 149 > > > +++++++++++++------- > > > nand_spl/nand_boot_fsl_nfc.c | 114 ++++++++++++---- > > > 4 files changed, 364 insertions(+), 127 deletions(-) > > > > > > NOTE: I'm seeing issues when this is compiled into U-Boot. U-Boot > > > won't boot on > > > my MX53 board and will hang right after printing "DRAM:" and > > > before > > > printing the > > > CPU info. I suspect it's some kind of unaligned access. > > > > OK. I'm waiting for your test results. It works for me on i.MX51 > > with > > 2012.07. > > It works with 2013.01-rc1, but I have issues. When I boot the board > from SD, it > hangs. When I load via JTAG, it doesn't hang. I suspect it's > something related > to the MXC NAND driver, since if the driver is not compiled in, it > works like > charm both ways. > > Otherwise, when booted, the NAND works fine. > > I wonder if there's some unaligned access or something happening in > the NAND > driver. Or maybe some other issue where the code is miscompiled. Or there is something wrong with the Flash header or SPL? > > > NOTE2: I fixed a few complaints from GCC > > > > Which ones? I don't see any such change in this new version. > > This one I think: > > 354 @@ -1167,8 +1226,8 @@ static struct nand_bbt_descr > bbt_mirror_descr = { > 355 int board_nand_init(struct nand_chip *this) > 356 { > 357 struct mtd_info *mtd; > 358 -#ifdef MXC_NFC_V2_1 > 359 - uint16_t tmp; > 360 +#if defined(MXC_NFC_V2_1) || defined(MXC_NFC_V3_2) > 361 + uint32_t tmp; > 362 #endif > 363 > 364 #ifdef CONFIG_SYS_NAND_USE_FLASH_BBT This is just the rebase. Or perhaps you started from http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/177098/ instead of http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/179176/. > > > and rebased on top of > > > master. > > > > OK. > > > > [--snip--] > > > > > @@ -698,7 +757,7 @@ static int mxc_nand_correct_data(struct > > > mtd_info > > > *mtd, u_char *dat, > > > > > > * additional correction. 2-Bit errors cannot be corrected by > > > * HW ECC, so we need to return failure > > > */ > > > > > > - uint16_t ecc_status = readw(&host->regs->ecc_status_result); > > > + uint32_t ecc_status = readnfc(&host->regs->ecc_status_result); > > > > ^ > > Here it was uint16_t in my last version, and this was correct since > > this is > > code for MXC_NFC_V1. This change should not hurt, but it was not > > necessary. > > But in case readnfc() results in readl(), u16 is too small. readnfc() always results in readw() for MXC_NFC_V1, so u16 is just fine here. > > Is this change related to the GCC complaints that you mentioned? > > No, there's one more, see above. > > > > if (((ecc_status & 0x3) == 2) || ((ecc_status >> 2) == 2)) { > > > > > > MTDDEBUG(MTD_DEBUG_LEVEL0, > > > > [--snip--] > > > > The other changes (i.e. the rebase) are fine with me. > > I hope I didn't screw up the attribution. I used "From:" which I hope > is > correct. It's correctly filled, but I don't know if it's used by U-Boot's Git process. I have already seen this "From:" used before. Best regards, Beno?t