[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 3/3] aspeed/smc: Fix number of dummy cycles for FAST_READ_4 c
From: |
Francisco Iglesias |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH 3/3] aspeed/smc: Fix number of dummy cycles for FAST_READ_4 command |
Date: |
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 12:38:56 +0100 |
User-agent: |
NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) |
Hi Cédric,
On [2020 Feb 04] Tue 08:45:11, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> On 2/3/20 7:09 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > The Linux kernel recently started using FAST_READ_4 commands.
> > This results in flash read failures. At the same time, the m25p80
> > emulation is seen to read 8 more bytes than expected. Adjusting the
> > expected number of dummy cycles to match FAST_READ fixes the problem.
>
> Which machine are you using for these tests ? the AST2500 evb using
> the w25q256 flash model ?
>
> Any how, it looks correct.
>
> Reviewed-by: Cédric Le Goater <address@hidden>
> Fixes: f95c4bffdc4c ("aspeed/smc: snoop SPI transfers to fake dummy cycles")
>
> I think commit ef06ca3946e2 ("xilinx_spips: Add support for RX discard
> and RX drain") needs a similar fix. Adding Francisco.
Yes, I agree that a similar fix is needed in the xilinx_spips aswell, I just
provided a patch. Thank you for the notification!
Best regards,
Francisco Iglesias
>
> Thanks,
>
> C.
>
>
> > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <address@hidden>
> > ---
> > hw/ssi/aspeed_smc.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/hw/ssi/aspeed_smc.c b/hw/ssi/aspeed_smc.c
> > index f0c7bbbad3..61e8fa57d3 100644
> > --- a/hw/ssi/aspeed_smc.c
> > +++ b/hw/ssi/aspeed_smc.c
> > @@ -762,11 +762,11 @@ static int aspeed_smc_num_dummies(uint8_t command)
> > case FAST_READ:
> > case DOR:
> > case QOR:
> > + case FAST_READ_4:
> > case DOR_4:
> > case QOR_4:
> > return 1;
> > case DIOR:
> > - case FAST_READ_4:
> > case DIOR_4:
> > return 2;
> > case QIOR:
> >
>
- [PATCH 1/3] m25p80: Convert to support tracing, Guenter Roeck, 2020/02/03
- [PATCH 3/3] aspeed/smc: Fix number of dummy cycles for FAST_READ_4 command, Guenter Roeck, 2020/02/03
- [PATCH 2/3] m25p80: Improve command handling for Jedec and unsupported commands, Guenter Roeck, 2020/02/03
- Re: [PATCH 2/3] m25p80: Improve command handling for Jedec and unsupported commands, Cédric Le Goater, 2020/02/04
- Re: [PATCH 2/3] m25p80: Improve command handling for Jedec and unsupported commands, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé, 2020/02/04
- Re: [PATCH 2/3] m25p80: Improve command handling for Jedec and unsupported commands, Guenter Roeck, 2020/02/04
- Re: [PATCH 2/3] m25p80: Improve command handling for Jedec and unsupported commands, Cédric Le Goater, 2020/02/05
- Re: [PATCH 2/3] m25p80: Improve command handling for Jedec and unsupported commands, Guenter Roeck, 2020/02/05
- Re: [PATCH 2/3] m25p80: Improve command handling for Jedec and unsupported commands, Joel Stanley, 2020/02/06
- Re: [PATCH 2/3] m25p80: Improve command handling for Jedec and unsupported commands, Guenter Roeck, 2020/02/06
Re: [PATCH 2/3] m25p80: Improve command handling for Jedec and unsupported commands, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé, 2020/02/04
Re: [PATCH 1/3] m25p80: Convert to support tracing, Alistair Francis, 2020/02/03