Hello Dean,
Friday, December 18, 2009, 10:00:16 PM, you wrote:
DG> Alright, GMail was putting my signature above the quoted email
DG> because of a lab thing I had enabled. It is now disabled so I
DG> should start to put my responses in a better place. I took a look
DG> at the archives and it is
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 2:48 PM, David Brownell wrote:
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
>
>
> On Friday 18 December 2009, Dean Glazeski wrote:
> > By
On Friday 18 December 2009, Dean Glazeski wrote:
> Right now, I'm specifically calling get_nand_device_by_num or some such.
> Can you suggest a better method or direct me to an example NAND flash? I'm
> not really aware of any other method.
>
> > > +...@deffn Command {at91sam9 ale} num addr_line
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
On Friday 18 December 2009, Dean Glazeski wrote:
> By the way, what is top-posting and how do I stop?
When you trim down the
On Tuesday 15 December 2009, Yegor Yefremov wrote:
> I've tested your changes with OpenOCD: 0.4.0-dev-00931-g6f929db
> (2009-12-15-13:50)
> It is working as earlier. For my board lm3s6432 I had to increase
> work-area amount to 0x4000 to avoid warnings.
Issuing warnings was inappropriate; that be
On Friday 18 December 2009, Michael Schwingen wrote:
> David Brownell wrote:
> > Though ... I suppose that just verifying flash writes would
> > catch a number of these problems too. After all, the main
> > constraint is that zero bits can't turn back to ones...
>
> Sounds good. Another alterna
It's currently allocating a big buffer but writing it out in
units of sizeof(host's pointer) ... sub-optimal.
--- a/src/flash/nor/tcl.c
+++ b/src/flash/nor/tcl.c
@@ -534,14 +534,16 @@ COMMAND_HANDLER(handle_flash_fill_command)
for (wrote = 0; wrote < (count*wordsize); wrote += cur_size)
Dne Pá 18. prosince 2009 16:02:35 Dean Glazeski napsal(a):
> The increase happens because the NAND erase function was using 1000 for a
> timeout so I just increased the general timeout to that amount. I don't
> think it should be a big deal because the timeout shouldn't happen
> normally.
>
> By
The increase happens because the NAND erase function was using 1000 for a
timeout so I just increased the general timeout to that amount. I don't
think it should be a big deal because the timeout shouldn't happen normally.
By the way, what is top-posting and how do I stop?
// Dean Glazeski
On
Yep, addr_line is a number like "8" that I automatically shift so that I
don't have to specify the line using binary notation. It's just easier to
handle it in C in my opinion.
ALE and CLE do have defaults (21 and 22 respectively). Ready/~Busy and chip
enable do not have defaults, however, but i
Right now, I'm specifically calling get_nand_device_by_num or some such.
Can you suggest a better method or direct me to an example NAND flash? I'm
not really aware of any other method.
// Dean Glazeski
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 4:13 AM, David Brownell wrote:
> On Thursday 17 December 2009, Dea
That may be a bug, but that's how the original NAND code did the read and
write functions. It does make sense for them to either both do the swap or
not do the swap.
// Dean Glazeski
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:43 AM, David Brownell wrote:
> On Thursday 17 December 2009, Dean Glazeski wrote:
>
What revision is your board? The title is a bit out of sync with the issue,
as in June it appears TI multiplexed SWO and JTAG. My board rev is LMWLV-C.
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 3:13 AM, Yegor Yefremov
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Charles Vaughn wrote:
> > I've recently purchased an
David Brownell wrote:
>> Hm. Not sure if this patch affects "write binary" behaviour, but in the
>> past, I had problems writing binary files with an odd number of bytes to
>> flash, because the last byte would trigger a similar check.
>>
>
> Last byte? Sounds like a different issue. Maybe
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Charles Vaughn wrote:
> I've recently purchased an LM3S811 evaluation board. I've tried to connect
> to it with OpenOCD, but I've met very little success even initiating a
> connection.
>
> When I use the version of OpenOCD available from Ubuntu repositories
> (r2
On Thursday 17 December 2009, Dean Glazeski wrote:
> +...@deffn Command {at91sam9 cle} num addr_line
So "addr_line" is for example "8" to indicate that A8 is
used to drive the CLE signal? Or should that be 0x0100
instead?
And ... are there defaults, or are ALE and CLE "must specify"
things? If
On Thursday 17 December 2009, Dean Glazeski wrote:
> +...@deffn Command {at91sam9 cle} num addr_line
> +Configure the address line used for latching commands. The @var{num}
> +parameter is the value shown by @command{nand list}.
> +...@end deffn
> +...@deffn Command {at91sam9 ale} num addr_line
>
On Friday 18 December 2009, Michael Schwingen wrote:
> David Brownell wrote:
> > Never attempt to write partial words. The hardware only
> > allows writing entire words ... so don't guess about what
> > users want to do with the other bytes. Require them to
> > say explicitly what data they want
> -Original Message-
> From: openocd-development-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:openocd-
> development-boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Zach Welch
> Sent: donderdag 17 december 2009 23:21
> To: Carsten Breuer
> Cc: Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
> Subject: Re: [Openocd-develop
Dne Pá 18. prosince 2009 06:11:23 Dean Glazeski napsal(a):
> Sorry, I took another look and saw what you were talking about and how to
> correct for it. Here's another version that addresses that issue.
>
> // Dean Glazeski
>
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Dean Glazeski wrote:
> > Oh, I di
David Brownell wrote:
> Never attempt to write partial words. The hardware only
> allows writing entire words ... so don't guess about what
> users want to do with the other bytes. Require them to
> say explicitly what data they want written.
>
Hm. Not sure if this patch affects "write binary"
21 matches
Mail list logo
