[U-Boot] [PATCH 3/3] NAND FSL elbc: Use virt_to_phys to determine which bank is in use

The current code that determines which bank/chipselect is used for a given NAND instance only worked for 32-bit addresses and assumed a 1:1 mapping. This breaks in 36-bit physical configs.
The proper way to handle this is to use the virt_to_phys() and BR_PHYS_ADDR() routinues to match the 34-bit lbc bus address with the the virtual address the NAND code uses.
Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala galak@kernel.crashing.org --- drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c | 6 ++++-- 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
This patch puts the plumbing in place to work properly for 36-bit phys support in the future. This requires a proper version of virt_to_phys().
- k
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c index 367c7d7..3f318e0 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c @@ -718,7 +718,7 @@ static void fsl_elbc_ctrl_init(void) int board_nand_init(struct nand_chip *nand) { struct fsl_elbc_mtd *priv; - uint32_t br, or; + uint32_t br = 0, or = 0;
if (!elbc_ctrl) { fsl_elbc_ctrl_init(); @@ -737,11 +737,13 @@ int board_nand_init(struct nand_chip *nand) * if we could pass more than one datum to the NAND driver... */ for (priv->bank = 0; priv->bank < MAX_BANKS; priv->bank++) { + phys_addr_t base_addr = virt_to_phys(nand->IO_ADDR_R); + br = in_be32(&elbc_ctrl->regs->bank[priv->bank].br); or = in_be32(&elbc_ctrl->regs->bank[priv->bank].or);
if ((br & BR_V) && (br & BR_MSEL) == BR_MS_FCM && - (br & or & BR_BA) == (phys_addr_t)nand->IO_ADDR_R) + (br & or & BR_BA) == BR_PHYS_ADDR(base_addr)) break; }

Kumar Gala wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c index 367c7d7..3f318e0 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c @@ -718,7 +718,7 @@ static void fsl_elbc_ctrl_init(void) int board_nand_init(struct nand_chip *nand) { struct fsl_elbc_mtd *priv;
- uint32_t br, or;
- uint32_t br = 0, or = 0;
Which GCC version complains about this? Seems like it's getting worse about false positives.
@@ -737,11 +737,13 @@ int board_nand_init(struct nand_chip *nand) * if we could pass more than one datum to the NAND driver... */ for (priv->bank = 0; priv->bank < MAX_BANKS; priv->bank++) {
phys_addr_t base_addr = virt_to_phys(nand->IO_ADDR_R);
br = in_be32(&elbc_ctrl->regs->bank[priv->bank].br); or = in_be32(&elbc_ctrl->regs->bank[priv->bank].or);
if ((br & BR_V) && (br & BR_MSEL) == BR_MS_FCM &&
(br & or & BR_BA) == (phys_addr_t)nand->IO_ADDR_R)
(br & or & BR_BA) == BR_PHYS_ADDR(base_addr))
ACK to go via whichever tree the BR_PHYS_ADDR patch goes through.
-Scott

On Nov 24, 2008, at 10:34 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/ fsl_elbc_nand.c index 367c7d7..3f318e0 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c @@ -718,7 +718,7 @@ static void fsl_elbc_ctrl_init(void) int board_nand_init(struct nand_chip *nand) { struct fsl_elbc_mtd *priv;
- uint32_t br, or;
- uint32_t br = 0, or = 0;
Which GCC version complains about this? Seems like it's getting worse about false positives.
Yeah, I was annoyed by this. gcc-4.3
- k
participants (2)
-
Kumar Gala
-
Scott Wood