[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/7] AT49BV322A Flash: the erase regions are in the wrong order.
The device id for this Flash is 0xc8.
Signed-off-by: David Wu davidwu@arcturusnetworks.com --- drivers/mtd/cfi_flash.c | 4 +++- 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/cfi_flash.c b/drivers/mtd/cfi_flash.c index fdba297..af86f99 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/cfi_flash.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/cfi_flash.c @@ -1690,8 +1690,10 @@ static void flash_fixup_atmel(flash_info_t *info, struct cfi_qry *qry) /* AT49BV6416(T) list the erase regions in the wrong order. * However, the device ID is identical with the non-broken * AT49BV642D they differ in the high byte. + * AT49BV322A is also in the wrong order. */ - if (info->device_id == 0xd6 || info->device_id == 0xd2) + if (info->device_id == 0xd6 || info->device_id == 0xd2 || + info->device_id == 0xc8) reverse_geometry = !reverse_geometry;
if (reverse_geometry)
On Thursday 08 April 2010 02:00:23 David Wu wrote:
The device id for this Flash is 0xc8.Signed-off-by: David Wu davidwu@arcturusnetworks.com
drivers/mtd/cfi_flash.c | 4 +++- 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/cfi_flash.c b/drivers/mtd/cfi_flash.c index fdba297..af86f99 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/cfi_flash.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/cfi_flash.c @@ -1690,8 +1690,10 @@ static void flash_fixup_atmel(flash_info_t *info, struct cfi_qry *qry) /* AT49BV6416(T) list the erase regions in the wrong order. * However, the device ID is identical with the non-broken * AT49BV642D they differ in the high byte.
* AT49BV322A is also in the wrong order.
- if (info->device_id == 0xd6 || info->device_id == 0xd2)
if (info->device_id == 0xd6 || info->device_id == 0xd2 ||
info->device_id == 0xc8)reverse_geometry = !reverse_geometry;
if (reverse_geometry)
Could you please split this patch from the patch series. I'll push it via the CFI git repository then. Thanks.
Cheers, Stefan
-- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-0 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: office@denx.de
Hi Stefan,
I am new here and I am not quite clear about how to split this patch. Any suggestion?
Regards, David On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 05:35:35 -0400, Stefan Roese sr@denx.de wrote:
On Thursday 08 April 2010 02:00:23 David Wu wrote:
The device id for this Flash is 0xc8.Signed-off-by: David Wu davidwu@arcturusnetworks.com
drivers/mtd/cfi_flash.c | 4 +++- 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/cfi_flash.c b/drivers/mtd/cfi_flash.c index fdba297..af86f99 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/cfi_flash.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/cfi_flash.c @@ -1690,8 +1690,10 @@ static void flash_fixup_atmel(flash_info_t *info, struct cfi_qry *qry) /* AT49BV6416(T) list the erase regions in the wrong order. * However, the device ID is identical with the non-broken * AT49BV642D they differ in the high byte.
* AT49BV322A is also in the wrong order.
- if (info->device_id == 0xd6 || info->device_id == 0xd2)
if (info->device_id == 0xd6 || info->device_id == 0xd2 ||
info->device_id == 0xc8)reverse_geometry = !reverse_geometry;
if (reverse_geometry)
Could you please split this patch from the patch series. I'll push it via the CFI git repository then. Thanks.
Cheers, Stefan
-- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-0 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: office@denx.de
Hi David,
On Thursday 08 April 2010 17:16:26 David Wu wrote:
I am new here and I am not quite clear about how to split this patch. Any suggestion?
I didn't mean that you should split this patch, but that you should split it from your *patchset* of 7 parts. Resulting in a patchset with 6 parts ([PATCH 1/6] ...) and one single patch. This way it's easier for me to pick up such a CFI related patch.
Thanks.
Cheers, Stefan
-- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-0 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: office@denx.de
Hi Stefan,
On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 11:21:45 -0400, Stefan Roese sr@denx.de wrote:
Hi David,
On Thursday 08 April 2010 17:16:26 David Wu wrote:
I am new here and I am not quite clear about how to split this patch. Any suggestion?
I didn't mean that you should split this patch, but that you should split it from your *patchset* of 7 parts. Resulting in a patchset with 6 parts ([PATCH 1/6] ...) and one single patch. This way it's easier for me to pick up such a CFI related patch.
OK. Will do it. A question: Do I have to do this way or just for convenience ? My concerns are 1 more traffic to the list 2 git will complain if applying the patch in the wrong order.
Regards, David
Thanks.
Cheers, Stefan
-- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-0 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: office@denx.de
Hi David,
On Thursday 08 April 2010 17:47:46 David Wu wrote:
I didn't mean that you should split this patch, but that you should split it from your *patchset* of 7 parts. Resulting in a patchset with 6 parts ([PATCH 1/6] ...) and one single patch. This way it's easier for me to pick up such a CFI related patch.
OK. Will do it. A question: Do I have to do this way or just for convenience ? My concerns are 1 more traffic to the list
Why would there be more traffic? Previously you did send 7 patches, numbered 1/7 ... 7/7. Now you would send 7 patches 1/6 ... 6/6 plus the CFI patch.
2 git will complain if applying the patch in the wrong order.
The CFI patch is unrelated to the other patches. At least it wont generate any compilation breakages/problems, if this patch is applied before or after your other Coldfire patches.
Cheers, Stefan
-- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-0 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: office@denx.de
Hi Stefan,
I think those patches if I resubmit are same as before except the subjects differ. Anyway If no one complains then I will send.
Regards, David
On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 02:46:17 -0400, Stefan Roese sr@denx.de wrote:
Hi David,
On Thursday 08 April 2010 17:47:46 David Wu wrote:
I didn't mean that you should split this patch, but that you should split it from your *patchset* of 7 parts. Resulting in a patchset with 6 parts ([PATCH 1/6] ...) and one single patch. This way it's easier for me to pick up such a CFI related patch.
OK. Will do it. A question: Do I have to do this way or just for convenience ? My concerns are 1 more traffic to the list
Why would there be more traffic? Previously you did send 7 patches, numbered 1/7 ... 7/7. Now you would send 7 patches 1/6 ... 6/6 plus the CFI patch.
2 git will complain if applying the patch in the wrong order.
The CFI patch is unrelated to the other patches. At least it wont generate any compilation breakages/problems, if this patch is applied before or after your other Coldfire patches. Cheers, Stefan
-- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-0 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: office@denx.de
Hi David,
On Friday 09 April 2010 17:11:35 David Wu wrote:
I think those patches if I resubmit are same as before except the subjects differ.
Yes. The patch will stay the same. Its more nitpicking to extract this CFI related patch from the Coldfire patchset so that I can better apply it via a different repository.
Anyway If no one complains then I will send.
Thanks.
Cheers, Stefan
-- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-0 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: office@denx.de
participants (2)
-
David Wu -
Stefan Roese