Hi Tolunay,
thank you for your reply!
Tolunay Orkun wrote on Monday, October 17, 2005 8:24 PM:
Martin Krause wrote: Some of the issues you are fixing are also fixed my earlier patch in the pipeline (from July). See my patch below for items 1,3,4 in your list.
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=12234135
OK, I missed this :(
I think, in flash_status_check() your patch timeout check is not correct. get_timer() returns in msec as well as tout is in msecs. So, they are directly comparable without involving CFG_HZ.
I think this is only true for boards where CFG_HZ is 1000.
I think the full status check needs to be applied to sector 0 irrespective of what sector you are operating with because this is where the flash status register resides. I think some flash ignore the sector address while others require sector 0. I would be careful in changing this without verifying for a wide range of flash chips.
It seems that during flash commands other than for writing (flash erase, flash protect, ...), the sector address has not to be 0 while checking status register. Is this correct?
Do you know a flash device, where the sector address has to bee 0 during DQ6 toggle bit staus checking? I only ask to avoid such flash devices in new designs ;-)
Yes, the sector number will be wrong in error if you activate debug outputs but it is only cosmetic as far as I can see. Also, finding the sector number each time from address is a time consuming search that will slow the flash write operation unnecessarily. I am more willing to take the wrong sector number in debug output (if enabled)
As far as I can see, the error message in flash_status_check() is printed always, not only if debug output is enabled.
than slowed down status check which is used in a number of places.
Maybe it is better then to print no details about the sector or address where the error occours, than to print wrong values?
Regards, Martin