[U-Boot] [PATCH] Disable FLASH_AMLV256U support for TOP860 target

[Reinhard Meyer]

Am 28.10.2014 10:48, schrieb Wolfgang Denk:
> Dear Reinhard,
>
> In message <CA+gZxsPKtwYAhHm88fBtGW17cxT7ncEz9OBxwpqiJ55WR-kfcg at mail.gmail.com> Vasili Galka wrote:
>> You're right, that would probably be a better solution. Although I'm not a
>> user of TOP860 board so I'm not really the right person to ask...
>> I just found this bug theoretically from looking on compiler warnings and
>> suggested a possible solution.
>>
>> Best,
>> Vasili
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Wolfgang Denk <wd at denx.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Vasili,
>>>
>>> In message <CA+gZxsOYLBU18LimMmfP9B-gZaykN=
>>> hZtM1FVgpd8p-eEW19bQ at mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
>>>>> TOP860 configuration assumes at most 128 flash sectors. Thus, the
>>>>> AMLV256U flash can't be supported. The existing code could result in
>>>>> memory corruption when writing to the flash_info->start[] array.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vasili Galka <vvv444 at gmail.com>
>>>>> Cc: Wolfgang Denk <wd at denx.de>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>   board/emk/common/flash.c |    4 +++-
>>>>>   1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/board/emk/common/flash.c b/board/emk/common/flash.c
>>>>> index ae5777c..4119b3b 100644
>>>>> --- a/board/emk/common/flash.c
>>>>> +++ b/board/emk/common/flash.c
>>>>> @@ -324,6 +324,7 @@ ulong flash_get_size (FPWV *addr, flash_info_t
>>> *info)
>>>>>                          }
>>>>>                          break;
>>>>>                  }
>>>>> +#ifndef CONFIG_TOP860
>>>>>                  if ((FPW)addr[FLASH_ID3] == (FPW)AMD_ID_LV256U_2 &&
>>>>>                          (FPW)addr[FLASH_ID4] == (FPW)AMD_ID_LV256U_3)
>>>>>                  {
>>>>> @@ -337,7 +338,8 @@ ulong flash_get_size (FPWV *addr, flash_info_t
>>> *info)
>>>>>                          }
>>>>>                          break;
>>>>>                  }
>>>>> -
>>>>> +#endif
>>>>> +
>>>>>                  /* fall thru to here ! */
>>>>>          default:
>>>>>                  printf ("unknown AMD device=%x %x %x",
>>>>> --
>>>>> 1.7.9
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Any review?
>>>> This was inspired by a a compiler warning. I'm still getting this warning
>>>> on the latest master.
>>> Sorry, I missed that one.
>>>
>>> Would it not be more appropriate to adjust the CONFIG_SYS_MAX_FLASH_SECT
>>> setting in "include/configs/TOP860.h"?  Or are you 100% sure that
>>> there were never be any AMLV256U flash chips fit on a TOP860 board?
>
> Maybe you can comment?
>
> Or is the TOP860 board so obsolete that we can remove it alltogether?
>
> What about the other boards in board/emk ? I don't see any real
> changes there during the last 5 years or so?  Are these still
> actively maintained?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Wolfgang Denk
>
Dear Wolfgang,

top860 can be removed (We already had that discussion a while ago.)

top5200 is still active in several older projects, but there was no need 
to make changes to u-boot or to integrate new features of u-boot.
Therefore I am not testing whether any changes to u-boot break the 
function of top5200.

top9000 is dead. Thanks atmel :(
However it might be left in u-boot as an example.

Best regards,
Reinhard