2009/6/1 Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com>: > Magnus Lilja wrote: >> >> 2009/5/30 Magnus Lilja <lilja.mag...@gmail.com>: >>> >>> 2009/5/29 Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com>: >>>> >>>> Does the number of address bytes really need to depend on the size of >>>> the >>>> flash chip, or can you base it on the number of non-zero bytes in >>>> page_address (the chip will know when the address phase is over because >>>> ALE drops)? >>> >>> Ok, will try to look into it. >> >> I did try to output only the non-zero bytes in the page_address but >> that didn't work at all, u-boot didn't boot Don't know why though. > > Yes, I was a bit confused -- it looks like we can't omit high-order zero > bytes, but I don't think it'll hurt (at least one chip manual explicitly > says it won't) to have extra bytes. So we could still keep the number of > bytes fixed at the number for the largest supported chip. > > Or, we could leave it the way it is, if you're not having any problems with > the extra code fitting in the boot page, and if you don't need to > dynamically support multiple chip sizes.
I think I'll leave it as is. There is no need to support multiple chip sizes dynamically, in order to do that we have to detect the chip type during boot and I couldn't fit that code into the boot page. /Magnus _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
