[U-Boot-Users] cfi_flash.c and lost volatile qualifier

[Haavard Skinnemoen]

Adrian Filipi <adrian.filipi at eurotech.com> wrote:
>  	Yeah, I agree it's bogus for the pointer to be volatile.  There 
> shouldn't be anything unusual about that.
> 
>  	The assembler does show several additional memory accesses, so I 
> think your theory is right.  I'm at a loss for what to to on the sync().

I'm at a loss too, I'm afraid...I don't really know PXA.

Linux seems to put an mb() after every write to the flash, so perhaps
include/asm-arm/system.h on Linux can provide some hints?

In any case, sync() should probably expand to at least a compiler
barrier on all architectures...though I'm not sure if it will make a
difference in this particular case.

Haavard