Scott,
On 05/17/2011 01:05 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Tue, 17 May 2011 10:11:14 -0400
> Alex Waterman <awater...@dawning.com> wrote:
>
>> I have seen issues with the nand_read_byte16() function in nand_base.c; it
>> seems like the cpu_to_le16() should be the other way around: le16_to_cpu().
>> Other than that no bugs as far as I am aware.
>
> What is the specific problem you're seeing? The use of these endian macros
> is a bit abusive and ugly (what's really wanted is native-endian I/O
> accessors -- readw() has an implicit le16_to_cpu()), and should have been
> done internally to the read_word() implementation rather than made part of
> the API, but functionally it should be correct.
When I was getting our NAND to work, it seemed like that function was always
returning 0. I fixed it by writing a read_byte() function like this:
/*
* Read a byte from the NDFC.
*/
static uint8_t tiger_read_byte(struct mtd_info *mtd){
uint16_t word;
struct nand_chip *chip = mtd->priv;
word = readw(chip->IO_ADDR_R);
return (uint8_t) word;
}
It looked to me like the readw() function was returning the data in the correct
CPU endianness (at least for PPC) and that the cpu_to_le16() was swapping the
bytes such that the cast down to a uint8_t was getting the unset high order
byte from the 16 bit read.
Regards,
Alex
--
Alex Waterman
Computer Engineer
Phone: 215-896-4920
Email: awater...@dawning.com
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
