[U-Boot-Users] FIX: dataflash.c

[Ulf Samuelsson]

mån 2007-08-20 klockan 01:40 +0200 skrev trimarchi at gandalf.sssup.it:
> Quoting Håvard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen at gmail.com>:
> 
> > On 8/19/07, Wolfgang Denk <wd at denx.de> wrote:
> >> In message <20070818231206.GA4040 at gandalf.sssup.it> you wrote:
> >> > --- drivers/dataflash.c.orig  2007-08-18 17:36:08.000000000 +0200
> >> > +++ drivers/dataflash.c       2007-08-18 17:37:05.000000000 +0200
> >> > @@ -27,16 +27,16 @@ AT91S_DATAFLASH_INFO dataflash_info[CFG_
> >> >  static AT91S_DataFlash DataFlashInst;
> >> >
> >> >  #ifdef CONFIG_AT91SAM9260EK
> >> > -int cs[][CFG_MAX_DATAFLASH_BANKS] = {
> >> > +int cs[][2] = {
> >> >       {CFG_DATAFLASH_LOGIC_ADDR_CS0, 0},      /* Logical adress, CS */
> >> >       {CFG_DATAFLASH_LOGIC_ADDR_CS1, 1}
> >> >  };
> >> >  #elif defined(CONFIG_AT91SAM9263EK)
> >> > -int cs[][CFG_MAX_DATAFLASH_BANKS] = {
> >> > +int cs[][2] = {
> >> >       {CFG_DATAFLASH_LOGIC_ADDR_CS0, 0}       /* Logical adress, CS */
> >> >  };
> >> >  #else
> >> > -int cs[][CFG_MAX_DATAFLASH_BANKS] = {
> >> > +int cs[][2] = {
> >> >       {CFG_DATAFLASH_LOGIC_ADDR_CS0, 0},      /* Logical adress, CS */
> >> >       {CFG_DATAFLASH_LOGIC_ADDR_CS3, 3}
> >> >  };
> >
> > Why not call it dataflash_cs[] and move it into the board code? It
> > already pollutes the namespace, is already board-dependent (hence the
> > #ifdefs) and is apparently buggy?
> >
> > Then the board code is responsible for defining a
> > CFG_MAX_DATAFLASH_BANKS symbol which corresponds with the actual
> > number of entries in the array. Of course, it can still be buggy, but
> > at least it's contained within the board code.
> >
> > Haavard
> 
> I send the patch just to say that the implementation does't work in  
> the u-boot git code when CFG_MAX_DATAFLASH_BANKS is egual to 1. I find  
> this fixing for me and send to the mailing list for a better solution.  
> There are a lot of problem in the implementation of the dataflash  
> layer. Take the cmd_mem.c file and It simple to observ that is not  
> possible to use a dataflash cp operation to memory without define a  
> dummy flash with parameters like CONFIG_MAX_BANKS set to 0.
> Regards Michael
> 

Yes, but you fix it in the wrong way.

You remove the error message by introducing an
inconsistency between the configuration and the actual code.

BR
Ulf Samuelsson