Re: [U-Boot] Non standard CFI detection tweaks

2010-08-12 Thread Rogan Dawes
On 2010/08/12 3:14 PM, Reinhard Meyer wrote: > It is mostly likely a 8/16 bit wide device in 8 bit mode on an 8 bit > external bus. Then all CFI data appears twice. Yes, this is exactly what I was seeing. > Reason: the chip presents CFI data correctly (from the flash point of view) > in 16 bit m

Re: [U-Boot] Non standard CFI detection tweaks

2010-08-12 Thread Reinhard Meyer
Stefan Roese wrote: > Hi Rogan, > > On Thursday 12 August 2010 14:07:03 Rogan Dawes wrote: >> I found the following configuration snippet for OpenOCD for the DNS323 >> at http://wiki.dns323.info/hardware:jtag: >> >> # driver addr size chip_width bus_width options >> flash ba

Re: [U-Boot] Non standard CFI detection tweaks

2010-08-12 Thread Stefan Roese
Hi Rogan, On Thursday 12 August 2010 14:07:03 Rogan Dawes wrote: > I found the following configuration snippet for OpenOCD for the DNS323 > at http://wiki.dns323.info/hardware:jtag: > > # driver addr size chip_width bus_width options > flash bank cfi 0xff80 0x8

Re: [U-Boot] Non standard CFI detection tweaks

2010-08-12 Thread Rogan Dawes
On 2010/07/20 9:58 AM, Stefan Roese wrote: > > OK, so the width is definitely 8 bit and not 16 bit: > > static struct physmap_flash_data dns323_nor_flash_data = { > .width = 1, > ... > > But the base address is listed here as 0xf400: > > #define DNS323_NOR_BOOT_BASE 0xf400 >

Re: [U-Boot] Non standard CFI detection tweaks

2010-07-23 Thread Albert ARIBAUD
Le 20/07/2010 13:01, Rogan Dawes a écrit : > On 2010/07/20 12:53 PM, Reinhard Meyer (-VC) wrote: >> Rogan Dawes schrieb: >>> You're not tempted to try to fix the CFI driver for your board anyway, I >>> suppose? :-) >> >> Tempted: YES ! >> >> Time available: (currently) NONE >> >> Being on the wish/

Re: [U-Boot] Non standard CFI detection tweaks

2010-07-20 Thread Rogan Dawes
On 2010/07/20 12:53 PM, Reinhard Meyer (-VC) wrote: > Rogan Dawes schrieb: >> You're not tempted to try to fix the CFI driver for your board anyway, I >> suppose? :-) > > Tempted: YES ! > > Time available: (currently) NONE > > Being on the wish/todo list: since years :) > > (and I might have to add

Re: [U-Boot] Non standard CFI detection tweaks

2010-07-20 Thread Reinhard Meyer (-VC)
Rogan Dawes schrieb: > You're not tempted to try to fix the CFI driver for your board anyway, I > suppose? :-) Tempted: YES ! Time available: (currently) NONE Being on the wish/todo list: since years :) (and I might have to add some board specifig #ifdefs because of the 16 MB mapping) BTW.. a

Re: [U-Boot] Non standard CFI detection tweaks

2010-07-20 Thread Rogan Dawes
On 2010/07/20 12:22 PM, Reinhard Meyer (-VC) wrote: > Rogan Dawes schrieb: >> Unfortunately, but understandably, it makes no difference whatsoever to >> the behaviour of the flash chip. I can still put it into QRY mode, where >> I get the doubled QQRRYY response, but the flash is not detected any >

Re: [U-Boot] Non standard CFI detection tweaks

2010-07-20 Thread Reinhard Meyer (-VC)
Rogan Dawes schrieb: > Unfortunately, but understandably, it makes no difference whatsoever to > the behaviour of the flash chip. I can still put it into QRY mode, where > I get the doubled QQRRYY response, but the flash is not detected any > better than it was previously. OOPS: On our system (

Re: [U-Boot] Non standard CFI detection tweaks

2010-07-20 Thread Reinhard Meyer (-VC)
Rogan Dawes schrieb: > Unfortunately, but understandably, it makes no difference whatsoever to > the behaviour of the flash chip. I can still put it into QRY mode, where > I get the doubled QQRRYY response, but the flash is not detected any > better than it was previously. Might it be that the

Re: [U-Boot] Non standard CFI detection tweaks

2010-07-20 Thread Rogan Dawes
On 2010/07/20 10:38 AM, I wrote: >> But the base address is listed here as 0xf400: >> >> #define DNS323_NOR_BOOT_BASE 0xf400 > > Hmmm, maybe I must try changing that, then. That might be the answer to > all the confusion. > > Although it is definitely an 8MB flash, and I thought it was supp

Re: [U-Boot] Non standard CFI detection tweaks

2010-07-20 Thread Rogan Dawes
On 2010/07/20 9:58 AM, Stefan Roese wrote: > Hi Rogan, > > OK, so the width is definitely 8 bit and not 16 bit: > > static struct physmap_flash_data dns323_nor_flash_data = { > .width = 1, > ... > > But the base address is listed here as 0xf400: > > #define DNS323_NOR_BOOT_BASE 0

Re: [U-Boot] Non standard CFI detection tweaks

2010-07-20 Thread Stefan Roese
Hi Rogan, On Monday 19 July 2010 16:37:08 Rogan Dawes wrote: > On 2010/07/19 3:33 PM, Stefan Roese wrote: > > Not really. I find it odd, that writing 0x9800 works and 0x0098 doesn't. > > Perhaps the chip is connected in byte-mode after all? Not sure. > > > > Do you know if and how the Linux MTD d

Re: [U-Boot] Non standard CFI detection tweaks

2010-07-19 Thread Rogan Dawes
On 2010/07/19 3:33 PM, Stefan Roese wrote: > > Not really. I find it odd, that writing 0x9800 works and 0x0098 doesn't. > Perhaps the chip is connected in byte-mode after all? Not sure. > > Do you know if and how the Linux MTD driver handles the NOR FLASH? > > Cheers, > Stefan Here is the setup co

Re: [U-Boot] Non standard CFI detection tweaks

2010-07-19 Thread Stefan Roese
On Monday 19 July 2010 14:18:37 Rogan Dawes wrote: > DNS323B1> mw.w ff800aaa 00aa > DNS323B1> mw.w ff800554 0055 > DNS323B1> mw.w ff800aaa 0090 > DNS323B1> md.w ff80 > ff80: > ff800010: ..

Re: [U-Boot] Non standard CFI detection tweaks

2010-07-19 Thread Rogan Dawes
On 2010/07/19 1:50 PM, Stefan Roese wrote: >> This is quite odd, though. >> >> DNS323B1> mw.w 0xff800555 00aa >> >> .. never returns. It seems to hang up the board for some reason. > > Ahh, unaligned 16bit access on ARM. > > Please give these commands another try: > > => mw.w ff800aaa 00aa > =>

Re: [U-Boot] Non standard CFI detection tweaks

2010-07-19 Thread Stefan Roese
On Monday 19 July 2010 13:05:09 Rogan Dawes wrote: > >> If I do a normal md over the rest of the flash, I do see expected > >> strings from the U-Boot "partition", and the kernel and ramdisk > >> partitions. i.e. not duplicated or anything like that. Not sure if that > >> answers your question at a

Re: [U-Boot] Non standard CFI detection tweaks

2010-07-19 Thread Rogan Dawes
On 2010/07/19 12:49 PM, Stefan Roese wrote: > Hi Rogan, > > On Monday 19 July 2010 12:18:45 Rogan Dawes wrote: >>> How is your FLASH chip connected to your CPU? In 16bit wide mode (which >>> is more common)? >> >> I have no idea. Do you have any suggestions how I can find out? > > I don't suppose y

Re: [U-Boot] Non standard CFI detection tweaks

2010-07-19 Thread Stefan Roese
Hi Rogan, On Monday 19 July 2010 12:18:45 Rogan Dawes wrote: > > How is your FLASH chip connected to your CPU? In 16bit wide mode (which > > is more common)? > > I have no idea. Do you have any suggestions how I can find out? I don't suppose you have the schematics for this board? > If I do a

Re: [U-Boot] Non standard CFI detection tweaks

2010-07-19 Thread Rogan Dawes
On 2010/07/19 11:34 AM, Stefan Roese wrote: > Hi Rogan, Hi Stefan, Thanks for responding. > On Tuesday 13 July 2010 22:00:37 Rogan Dawes wrote: >> I'm trying to add support for my D-Link DNS323 (Orion5x-based) to >> U-Boot, building on the efforts of Albert Aribaud. >> >> One place where I am st

Re: [U-Boot] Non standard CFI detection tweaks

2010-07-19 Thread Stefan Roese
Hi Rogan, On Tuesday 13 July 2010 22:00:37 Rogan Dawes wrote: > I'm trying to add support for my D-Link DNS323 (Orion5x-based) to > U-Boot, building on the efforts of Albert Aribaud. > > One place where I am struggling is with the detection of the flash chip. > > The flash part is a 8 MB Spansio

[U-Boot] Non standard CFI detection tweaks

2010-07-13 Thread Rogan Dawes
Hi Stefan, I'm trying to add support for my D-Link DNS323 (Orion5x-based) to U-Boot, building on the efforts of Albert Aribaud. One place where I am struggling is with the detection of the flash chip. The flash part is a 8 MB Spansion S29GL064M90TFIR4, and the data sheet can be found at: http: