Yes, I have used same drive_get(IF_PFLASH, 0, 0) with two flashes.
As these flashes are two different banks with individual bases address,
I used the same.
Was there any block allocation problem with this..will you please elaborate.
I couldn't understand about drive_get_next(), I think function can
be useful single drive devices SD/MTD.
Please suggest your comments.
Regards,
Jagan.
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Peter Crosthwaite
<address@hidden
<mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 5:03 AM, <address@hidden
<mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
> From: Jagan <address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>>
>
> This patch adds support for NOR1 flash (Bank #2) on
> vexpress-a9 platform. It is 64MB CFI01 compliant flash.
>
> Tested on stable u-boot version through Linux.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jagan <address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>>
> ---
> hw/vexpress.c | 10 +++++++++-
> 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/vexpress.c b/hw/vexpress.c
> index 2e889a8..b4262ed 100644
> --- a/hw/vexpress.c
> +++ b/hw/vexpress.c
> @@ -422,7 +422,15 @@ static void vexpress_common_init(const
VEDBoardInfo *daughterboard,
> }
>
> /* VE_NORFLASH0ALIAS: not modelled */
> - /* VE_NORFLASH1: not modelled */
> + /* VE_NORFLASH1: */
> + dinfo = drive_get(IF_PFLASH, 0, 0);
Both flashes use drive_get(IF_PFLASH, 0, 0). Doesnt this means they
are both going to back to the same file (one -pflash argument) and
share storage? Should this use drive_get_next() and you specify two
-pflash args, one for each device?
Regards
Peter
> + if (!pflash_cfi01_register(map[VE_NORFLASH1], NULL,
"vexpress.flash1",
> + VEXPRESS_FLASH_SIZE, dinfo ? dinfo->bdrv : NULL,
> + VEXPRESS_FLASH_SECT_SIZE,
> + VEXPRESS_FLASH_SIZE / VEXPRESS_FLASH_SECT_SIZE,
> + 4, 0x0089, 0x0018, 0x0000, 0x1, 0)) {
> + fprintf(stderr, "qemu: Error registering flash1 memory.\n");
> + }
>
> sram_size = 0x2000000;
> memory_region_init_ram(sram, "vexpress.sram", sram_size);
> --
> 1.7.0.4
>
>