qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1 7/7] nand: Reset addressing after READSTATUS.


From: Peter Crosthwaite
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1 7/7] nand: Reset addressing after READSTATUS.
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:05:39 +1000

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Edgar E. Iglesias
<address@hidden> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:59:49PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 19 October 2012 07:40, Peter Crosthwaite
>> <address@hidden> wrote:
>> > From: Edgar E. Iglesias <address@hidden>
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <address@hidden>
>> > ---
>> >
>> >  hw/nand.c |    6 ++++++
>> >  1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/hw/nand.c b/hw/nand.c
>> > index 01f3ada..f931d0c 100644
>> > --- a/hw/nand.c
>> > +++ b/hw/nand.c
>> > @@ -478,6 +478,12 @@ void nand_setio(DeviceState *dev, uint32_t value)
>> >      int i;
>> >      NANDFlashState *s = (NANDFlashState *) dev;
>> >      if (!s->ce && s->cle) {
>> > +        if (s->cmd == NAND_CMD_READSTATUS) {
>> > +            s->addr = 0;
>> > +            s->addrlen = 0;
>> > +            s->iolen = 0;
>> > +        }
>> > +
>>
>> I find the NAND chip datasheets remarkably hard to interpret, but
>> I'm not convinced this patch is the right thing. Can you provide
>> some rationale/justification, please? (ideally with reference to
>> datasheets...)
>
> This is patch is quite old (several years). At the time modern linux kernels
> stopped working with our nand model in some cases. Some patch to our
> nand model broke something. I recall trying to make some sense out of
> it and this was the closest I got..
>
> I don't know what the state it is today nor do I remember the exact
> circumstances on which the bug was trigged. Maybe Peter C has more
> info?
>

Not really. Im fairly lost as well on the data-sheet front but AFAICT
what actually happens here is an undefined behaviour. Ill have to dig
deeper on my tests to see if its a problem. Could just be a hangover
from an ancient kernel bug and this patch is unneeded.

Regards,
Peter

> Cheers,
> Edgar
>



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]