Am 28.10.2014 10:48, schrieb Wolfgang Denk:
Dear Reinhard,
In message <ca+gzxspktwyahhm88fbtgw17cxt7ncez9obxwpqij55wr-k...@mail.gmail.com>
Vasili Galka wrote:
You're right, that would probably be a better solution. Although I'm not a
user of TOP860 board so I'm not really the right person to ask...
I just found this bug theoretically from looking on compiler warnings and
suggested a possible solution.
Best,
Vasili
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote:
Dear Vasili,
In message <CA+gZxsOYLBU18LimMmfP9B-gZaykN=
hztm1fvgpd8p-eew1...@mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
TOP860 configuration assumes at most 128 flash sectors. Thus, the
AMLV256U flash can't be supported. The existing code could result in
memory corruption when writing to the flash_info->start[] array.
Signed-off-by: Vasili Galka <vvv...@gmail.com>
Cc: Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de>
---
board/emk/common/flash.c | 4 +++-
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/board/emk/common/flash.c b/board/emk/common/flash.c
index ae5777c..4119b3b 100644
--- a/board/emk/common/flash.c
+++ b/board/emk/common/flash.c
@@ -324,6 +324,7 @@ ulong flash_get_size (FPWV *addr, flash_info_t
*info)
}
break;
}
+#ifndef CONFIG_TOP860
if ((FPW)addr[FLASH_ID3] == (FPW)AMD_ID_LV256U_2 &&
(FPW)addr[FLASH_ID4] == (FPW)AMD_ID_LV256U_3)
{
@@ -337,7 +338,8 @@ ulong flash_get_size (FPWV *addr, flash_info_t
*info)
}
break;
}
-
+#endif
+
/* fall thru to here ! */
default:
printf ("unknown AMD device=%x %x %x",
--
1.7.9
Any review?
This was inspired by a a compiler warning. I'm still getting this warning
on the latest master.
Sorry, I missed that one.
Would it not be more appropriate to adjust the CONFIG_SYS_MAX_FLASH_SECT
setting in "include/configs/TOP860.h"? Or are you 100% sure that
there were never be any AMLV256U flash chips fit on a TOP860 board?
Maybe you can comment?
Or is the TOP860 board so obsolete that we can remove it alltogether?
What about the other boards in board/emk ? I don't see any real
changes there during the last 5 years or so? Are these still
actively maintained?
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Dear Wolfgang,
top860 can be removed (We already had that discussion a while ago.)
top5200 is still active in several older projects, but there was no need
to make changes to u-boot or to integrate new features of u-boot.
Therefore I am not testing whether any changes to u-boot break the
function of top5200.
top9000 is dead. Thanks atmel :(
However it might be left in u-boot as an example.
Best regards,
Reinhard
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
