[U-Boot-Users] Spartan FPGA patch
Jerry Van Baren
gerald.vanbaren at ge.com
Wed Nov 7 22:07:29 CET 2007
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Matthias,
>
> in message <200711071529.49762.matthias.fuchs at esd-electronics.com> you wrote:
>> when copying val from 'data[bytecount++]' it is common practice that val
>> if of the same type as the array elements. So val should be unsigned char.
>
> Maybe. But what's the difference?
>
>> I changed the sign check into a 'val & 0x80', which I think is fine an clean.
>
> If it is indeed intended to be a test for a negative number, then
> this is neither nice nor clean.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Wolfgang Denk
Hi Wolfgang,
You are missing the point of signed vs. unsigned because you got sucked
into the wrong argument. The problematic code is:
512 val = data [bytecount ++];
513 i = 8;
514 do {
515 /* Deassert the clock */
516 (*fn->clk) (FALSE, TRUE, cookie);
517 CONFIG_FPGA_DELAY ();
518 /* Write data */
519 (*fn->wr) ((val < 0), TRUE, cookie); <-------- BAD
520 CONFIG_FPGA_DELAY ();
521 /* Assert the clock */
522 (*fn->clk) (TRUE, TRUE, cookie);
523 CONFIG_FPGA_DELAY ();
524 val <<= 1;
525 i --;
526 } while (i > 0);
As you can see, the code is looking at the MSB of the 8 bit value to see
if it must program a '1' or a '0' and it is shifting the byte left by 1
bit each time.
The problem is that it is using a *signed character test* (val < 0)
where it *should be* using an bit ANDing operation to isolate the MSBit
of the 8 bit "char" (and I would leave the char as a char, since it is
immaterial whether it is signed or unsigned *if the correct test were
used*). This is what Angelos recommended:
<http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/33116>
Obviously, I agree with him and recommend that the
(val < 0)
be changed to
(val & 0x80)
rather than the original fix (which also works, but is fixing the
problem in the wrong way IMHO).
Best regards,
gvb
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list