Hi Jon,
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 21:09:52, Hunter, Jon wrote:
Sure, but reviewing the function it still looks odd from a readability
standpoint. At least it made me think what is going on here So a
comment is definitely needed.
2. A bad setting in the configuration passed.
Hi Afzal,
On 06/13/2012 12:50 AM, Mohammed, Afzal wrote:
Hi Jon,
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 23:39:32, Hunter, Jon wrote:
On 06/12/2012 07:58 AM, Mohammed, Afzal wrote:
Thinking again over it, I am feeling above is sufficient, reason same as
said earlier, to keep code simple currently this
Hi Jon,
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 03:13:02, Hunter, Jon wrote:
+static void gpmc_setup_cs_config(unsigned cs, unsigned conf)
+{
+ u32 l = gpmc_cs_read_reg(cs, GPMC_CS_CONFIG1);
Why is it necessary to read the register first? I thought you wanted to
get away from relying on bootloader
Hi Jon,
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 14:10:08, Mohammed, Afzal wrote:
+ l |= conf GPMC_CONFIG1_DEVICETYPE_NAND;
+ l |= conf GPMC_CONFIG1_DEVICESIZE_16;
I can see that it works to use the above definitions as masks because of
the possible values that can be programmed into these fields.
On 06/12/2012 03:40 AM, Mohammed, Afzal wrote:
Hi Jon,
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 03:13:02, Hunter, Jon wrote:
+static void gpmc_setup_cs_config(unsigned cs, unsigned conf)
+{
+ u32 l = gpmc_cs_read_reg(cs, GPMC_CS_CONFIG1);
Why is it necessary to read the register first? I thought you
On 06/12/2012 07:58 AM, Mohammed, Afzal wrote:
Hi Jon,
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 14:10:08, Mohammed, Afzal wrote:
+ l |= conf GPMC_CONFIG1_DEVICETYPE_NAND;
+ l |= conf GPMC_CONFIG1_DEVICESIZE_16;
I can see that it works to use the above definitions as masks because of
the possible
Hi Jon,
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 23:36:17, Hunter, Jon wrote:
Well it is unclear what the code flow is for using this helper as this
change simply adds the helper. If someone other function is writing to
the CONFIG1 register before this function, then you may wish to
highlight the programming
Hi Jon,
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 23:39:32, Hunter, Jon wrote:
On 06/12/2012 07:58 AM, Mohammed, Afzal wrote:
Thinking again over it, I am feeling above is sufficient, reason same as
said earlier, to keep code simple currently this is sufficient to
handle GPMC bit patterns for IPs
