[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <28258.1196431276@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:01:16 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, tharbaugh@...i.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-am33-list@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] MN10300: Fix MTD JEDEC probe so that the ASB2303 bootprom can be detected [2.6.24-rc3-mm2]
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> wrote:
> I don't like this -- it shouldn't be necessary.
Actually, I think you're right. I think the problem is that:
if (uaddr != MTD_UADDR_NOT_SUPPORTED ) {
/* ASSERT("The unlock addresses for non-8-bit mode
are bollocks. We don't really need an array."); */
uaddr = finfo->uaddr[0];
}
Should be:
if (uaddr == MTD_UADDR_NOT_SUPPORTED ) {
/* ASSERT("The unlock addresses for non-8-bit mode
are bollocks. We don't really need an array."); */
uaddr = finfo->uaddr[0];
}
Otherwise the finfo->uaddr[] table is useless because only the first row will
be used, except for unsupported configurations where uaddr will be set to
MTD_UADDR_NOT_SUPPORTED.
With the ASB2303 bootprom I need to use the second row because it's in the x16
configuration, *not* the x8.
David
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists