public inbox for u-boot@lists.denx.de
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [U-Boot-Users] Patch for drivers/cfi_flash.c; properly detect write errors.
@ 2005-08-23 21:01 Marcus Hall
  2006-02-28 16:36 ` Wolfgang Denk
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Marcus Hall @ 2005-08-23 21:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: u-boot

Hello..

It seems that there is a minor problem in cfi_flash.c that prevents it
from detecting that a flash write error has occurred.

The first change in the attached patch is trivial, it just makes the
strings output for a protected and a non-protected sector have the same
length so the output looks prettier..

The second change is in flash_full_status_check().  We have just called
flash_status_check() and then did a switch() on the vendor.  For intel,
we *should* check if there are any error bits if the previous call
returned ERR_OK (Otherwise we will have output an error message in
flash_status_check() already.)  The original code would only check for
error bits if flash_status_check() returns ERR_TIMEOUT.

-- 
Marcus Hall
marcushall at lucent.com
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: CFI_FLASH.patch
Url: http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20050823/922fe166/attachment.txt 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

* [U-Boot-Users] Patch for drivers/cfi_flash.c; properly detect write errors.
  2005-08-23 21:01 [U-Boot-Users] Patch for drivers/cfi_flash.c; properly detect write errors Marcus Hall
@ 2006-02-28 16:36 ` Wolfgang Denk
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Wolfgang Denk @ 2006-02-28 16:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: u-boot

In message <430B8EC1.6090406@lucent.com> you wrote:
> 
> It seems that there is a minor problem in cfi_flash.c that prevents it
> from detecting that a flash write error has occurred.
> 
> The first change in the attached patch is trivial, it just makes the
> strings output for a protected and a non-protected sector have the same
> length so the output looks prettier..
> 
> The second change is in flash_full_status_check().  We have just called
> flash_status_check() and then did a switch() on the vendor.  For intel,
> we *should* check if there are any error bits if the previous call
> returned ERR_OK (Otherwise we will have output an error message in
> flash_status_check() already.)  The original code would only check for
> error bits if flash_status_check() returns ERR_TIMEOUT.

Applied. Thanks. But please provide a  proper  CHANGELOG  entry  next
time.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Clarke's Third Law       - _Profiles of the Future_ (1962; rev. 1973)
                  ``Hazards of Prophecy: The Failure of Imagination''

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2006-02-28 16:36 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-08-23 21:01 [U-Boot-Users] Patch for drivers/cfi_flash.c; properly detect write errors Marcus Hall
2006-02-28 16:36 ` Wolfgang Denk

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox