From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tolunay Orkun Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:05:51 -0600 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] Where does U-Boot's CFI driver check for top/bottom boot? In-Reply-To: <200611071918.22319.sr@denx.de> References: <11628568123033-git-send-email-timur@freescale.com> <4550C155.2030202@freescale.com> <4550CA15.80605@orkun.us> <200611071918.22319.sr@denx.de> Message-ID: <4551114F.6080102@orkun.us> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Stefan Roese wrote: > Hi Tolunay, > > On Tuesday 07 November 2006 19:01, Tolunay Orkun wrote: >> Questions for the maintainers: >> >> 1) I have some new variables for man_id, dev_id, cfi_version introduced by >> this patch (actually man_id is currently not used so could be removed). I >> can kept these local to the function for now or I can add them to the info >> structure along with ext_addr (to easily locate the Vendor Extended Query >> Structure in flash). What do you think? >> >> In the minimum displaying man_id, dev_id, cfi_version when executing >> "flinfo" command could be useful for diagnostic purposes. We might need to >> use them to tweak the behavior of some other functionality in the future as >> well. > > Yes, I definitely think it's useful to display this ID information (or even > better a real manufacturer/device string) in the "flinfo" command. So my vote > is to extend the struct. I just noticed the info structure has a flash_id field which the comment says it is for combined manufacturer id (ms 16-bit) and device id (ls 16-bit). However, for CFI driver the value stored there is FLASH_MAN_CFI. I can get rid of that and store the actual flash id but I will have to get rid of the checks in the driver that verifies the field to be FLASH_MAN_CFI. Best regards, Tolunay