Hi Mike,
> On Monday, August 23, 2010 17:03:24 Detlev Zundel wrote:
>> Hi Stefan,
>> > On Monday 23 August 2010 17:55:44 Stefano Babic wrote:
>> >> > I am also adding support for S25FL032P chips to the spansion driver.
>> >> > Will post a patch later.
>> >>
>> >> I have seen. However, it should b
On Monday, August 23, 2010 17:03:24 Detlev Zundel wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
> > On Monday 23 August 2010 17:55:44 Stefano Babic wrote:
> >> > I am also adding support for S25FL032P chips to the spansion driver.
> >> > Will post a patch later.
> >>
> >> I have seen. However, it should be better if you se
Hi Stefan,
> On Monday 23 August 2010 17:55:44 Stefano Babic wrote:
>> > I am also adding support for S25FL032P chips to the spansion driver. Will
>> > post a patch later.
>>
>> I have seen. However, it should be better if you send the patch also to
>> the maintainer for the MTD subsystem (Stefan
On Monday 23 August 2010 17:55:44 Stefano Babic wrote:
> > I am also adding support for S25FL032P chips to the spansion driver. Will
> > post a patch later.
>
> I have seen. However, it should be better if you send the patch also to
> the maintainer for the MTD subsystem (Stefan Roese, I set his a
David Jander wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
Hi David,
> I just checked in the reference manual of the i.MX31, and there the meaning
> of
> this bit has the same polarity as on the i.MX51, so you'll need to fix this
> also at the end of the spi_setup_slave() function, in the #else path of the
> #ifde
Hi Stefano,
On Monday 23 August 2010 12:37:16 pm Stefano Babic wrote:
>[...]
> > In spi_cfg(), I saw this line:
> >
> > if (!(mode & SPI_CPOL))
> > sclkpol = 1;
> >
> > AFAIK, this should be:
> >
> > if (mode & SPI_CPOL)
> > sclkpol = 1;
> >
> > At least for the MX51. Can you confirm that
David Jander wrote:
> Ok, I guess I was pessimistic. There is a weird bug in mxc_spi.c: CPOL is
> negated!
> I just saw that in the mx51evk.h header file CONFIG_FSL_PMIC_MODE was set to
> low-active clock (CPOL=1), which is not supposed to work. But it did work,
> and
> on the scope clock-polar
David Jander wrote:
> Hi again,
>
Hi David,
> Are you sure? In arch/arm/lib/board.c function start_armboot(), init_sequence
> is processed first, which contains env_init() before dram_init() and just
> after completing init_sequence, mem_malloc_init() is called. How can you have
> working mall
On Monday 23 August 2010 10:50:53 am David Jander wrote:
> I am just now picking up where I left last week, so give me a few hours and
> I should have something working, I guess.
Ok, I guess I was pessimistic. There is a weird bug in mxc_spi.c: CPOL is
negated!
I just saw that in the mx51evk.h h
Hi again,
On Friday 20 August 2010 03:35:57 pm Stefano Babic wrote:
> > Just figured out one big mistake. I was debugging spi_flash.c, and had
> > CONFIG_ENV_IS_IN_SPI_FLASH set. That means, first SPI access is done
> > before malloc is available, and guess what? spi_setup_slave() uses malloc
> >
David Jander wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
Hi David,
> On Friday 20 August 2010 01:19:28 pm Stefano Babic wrote:
>>> Will do.
>>> Btw, do you have any idea why spi_xchg_single() hangs while transmitting
>>> the second word without claiming the bus again?
>> Can you see where does it hang ? Which device
Hi Stefano,
On Friday 20 August 2010 01:19:28 pm Stefano Babic wrote:
> > Will do.
> > Btw, do you have any idea why spi_xchg_single() hangs while transmitting
> > the second word without claiming the bus again?
>
> Can you see where does it hang ? Which device is connected to your SPI
> bus ? D
David Jander wrote:
> Absolutely right. I just posted it as reference for your patch eventually,
> not
> because I thought it was good that way.
Yes, I know. I want only to point out what we have to reach ;-)
>>> Seems to work, but never mind...
>> Ok, I will resend my patch, I hope you can giv
On Friday 20 August 2010 12:20:25 pm Stefano Babic wrote:
> David Jander wrote:
> > Great. I'll wait.
> > In the meantime I have just done this to get it working:
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_MX31
> > void spi_cs_activate(struct spi_slave *slave)
> > {
> > struct mxc_spi_slave *mxcs = to_mxc_spi_slave
David Jander wrote:
> Great. I'll wait.
> In the meantime I have just done this to get it working:
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_MX31
> void spi_cs_activate(struct spi_slave *slave)
> {
> struct mxc_spi_slave *mxcs = to_mxc_spi_slave(slave);
> if (mxcs->gpio > 0)
> mxc_gpio_set(mxcs
Stefano,
On Friday 20 August 2010 12:01:00 pm Stefano Babic wrote:
> > After this change, it seems something else is missing:
> > GCC somehow removed the following code for i.MX51 without actually
> > compiling the arguments to the functions (???), but now it becomes
> > evident this only compile
David Jander wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
Hi David,
> After this change, it seems something else is missing:
> GCC somehow removed the following code for i.MX51 without actually compiling
> the arguments to the functions (???), but now it becomes evident this only
> compiles for i.MX31:
Understood,
Hi Stefano,
On Friday 20 August 2010 10:20:11 am Stefano Babic wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/spi/mxc_spi.c b/drivers/spi/mxc_spi.c
> index e15a63c..54af2e3 100644
> --- a/drivers/spi/mxc_spi.c
> +++ b/drivers/spi/mxc_spi.c
> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
> #include
> #include
> #include
> +#include
>
On Friday 20 August 2010 10:20:11 am Stefano Babic wrote:
> The patch adds support for setting gpios to the
> MX51 processor and change name to the corresponding
> functions for MX31. In this way, it is possible to get rid
> of nasty #ifdef switches related to the processor type.
Argh! I was just
19 matches
Mail list logo
