On Monday 14 December 2015 01:01 PM, Bin Meng wrote:
Hi Jagan,
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Jagan Teki jteki@openedev.com wrote:
Used mode member from spi_slave{} instead of op_mode_tx.
Cc: Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com Cc: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki jteki@openedev.com
Changes for v2: - none
drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c | 2 +- drivers/mtd/spi/spi_flash.c | 4 ++-- drivers/spi/ich.c | 2 +- include/spi.h | 8 ++------ 4 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c index 0cafc29..3519ffd 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c @@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ static int spi_flash_std_write(struct udevice *dev, u32 offset, size_t len,
#if defined(CONFIG_SPI_FLASH_SST) if (flash->flags & SNOR_F_SST_WR) {
if (flash->spi->op_mode_tx & SPI_OPM_TX_BP)
if (flash->spi->mode & SPI_TX_BP)Did you ever build this? spi->mode is declared as a u8, but SPI_TX_BP is 0x100.
Look like I sent the wrong patch, I made mode as uint will send that.
thanks!