> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wood Scott-B07421
> Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 1:17 AM
> To: Liu Shengzhou-B36685
> Cc: Wood Scott-B07421; linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; linux-
> m...@lists.infradead.org; dw...@infradead.org; Gala Kumar-B11780
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] mtd/nand: fixup for fmr initialization of
> Freescale NAND controller
>
> On 12/07/2011 12:30 AM, Liu Shengzhou-B36685 wrote:
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Wood Scott-B07421
> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 1:16 AM
> >> To: Liu Shengzhou-B36685
> >> Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; linux-...@lists.infradead.org;
> >> dw...@infradead.org; Gala Kumar-B11780
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] mtd/nand: fixup for fmr initialization of
> >> Freescale NAND controller
> >>
> >> On 12/06/2011 02:54 AM, Shengzhou Liu wrote:
> >>> There was a bug for fmr initialization, which lead to fmr was
> >>> always 0x100 in fsl_elbc_chip_init() and caused FCM command timeout
> >>> before calling fsl_elbc_chip_init_tail(), now we initialize CWTO to
> >>> maximum timeout value and not relying on the setting of bootloader.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Shengzhou Liu <shengzhou....@freescale.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> v2: make fmr not relying on the setting of bootloader.
> >>>
> >>> drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c | 10 +++++-----
> >>> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c
> >>> b/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c
> >>> index eedd8ee..4f405a0 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c
> >>> @@ -659,9 +659,7 @@ static int fsl_elbc_chip_init_tail(struct
> >>> mtd_info
> >> *mtd)
> >>> if (chip->pagemask & 0xff000000)
> >>> al++;
> >>>
> >>> - /* add to ECCM mode set in fsl_elbc_init */
> >>> - priv->fmr |= (12 << FMR_CWTO_SHIFT) | /* Timeout > 12 ms */
> >>> - (al << FMR_AL_SHIFT);
> >>> + priv->fmr |= al << FMR_AL_SHIFT;
> >>>
> >>> dev_dbg(priv->dev, "fsl_elbc_init: nand->numchips = %d\n",
> >>> chip->numchips);
> >>> @@ -764,8 +762,10 @@ static int fsl_elbc_chip_init(struct
> >>> fsl_elbc_mtd
> >> *priv)
> >>> priv->mtd.priv = chip;
> >>> priv->mtd.owner = THIS_MODULE;
> >>>
> >>> - /* Set the ECCM according to the settings in bootloader.*/
> >>> - priv->fmr = in_be32(&lbc->fmr) & FMR_ECCM;
> >>> + /* set timeout to maximum */
> >>> + priv->fmr = 15 << FMR_CWTO_SHIFT;
> >>> + if (in_be32(&lbc->bank[priv->bank].or) & OR_FCM_PGS)
> >>> + priv->fmr |= FMR_ECCM;
> >>
> >> Please do not change the way ECCM is handled. We probably should
> >> have done it this way from the start, but at this point it breaks
> >> compatibility if you have a large page flash and the firmware didn't
> >> touch NAND.
> >>
> >> -Scott
> > [Shengzhou] This patch doesn't change the way ECCM is handled, it's
> still same as before, just make sure CWTO timeout is set to maximum.
>
> It does change it. It used to use the existing value in FMR, and now it
> sets it based on ORn[PGS].
>
> -Scott
[Shengzhou]
In u-boot:
#ifdef CONFIG_FSL_ELBC_FMR
priv->fmr = CONFIG_FSL_ELBC_FMR;
#else
priv->fmr = (15 << FMR_CWTO_SHIFT) | (2 << FMR_AL_SHIFT);
or = in_be32(&elbc_ctrl->regs->bank[priv->bank].or);
if (or & OR_FCM_PGS)
priv->fmr |= FMR_ECCM;
#endif
In kernel: It used to be " priv->fmr = in_be32(&lbc->fmr) & FMR_ECCM ", so
fmr was always 0x100(or 0,depend on ORn[PGS]), CWTO was 0(timeout was minimum).
In this patch, for not relying on bootloader, fmr is initialized as what
u-boot does, except FMR_AL_SHIFT is handled in fsl_elbc_chip_init_tail and
without definition of CONFIG_FSL_ELBC_FMR.
So, it doesn't change it. Do we still need CONFIG_FSL_ELBC_FMR in kernel?
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
