From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([2001:6f8:1178:4:290:27ff:fe1d:cc33]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.72 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1OjWWY-0001Eo-Jf for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:04:43 +0000 Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:04:40 +0200 From: Sascha Hauer Message-ID: <20100812120440.GZ27749@pengutronix.de> References: <20100810070909.GB10920@game.jcrosoft.org> <5a5cd75e51961a57b99c0727faa8b3eaa619b943.1281601710.git.baruch@tkos.co.il> <20100812090600.GY27749@pengutronix.de> <20100812092701.GE13166@jasper.tkos.co.il> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100812092701.GE13166@jasper.tkos.co.il> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: barebox-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] cmd: add fuse_blow/fuse_sense for the i.MX IIM fusebox To: Baruch Siach Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:27:01PM +0300, Baruch Siach wrote: > Hi Sascha, > > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:06:00AM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:35:04AM +0300, Baruch Siach wrote: > > > This has only been tested on i.MX25, but should work on other i.MX chips with > > > IIM. > > > > I would prefer this command to be implemented as a device driver which > > registers a file under /dev. This way we could use the standard md/mw > > commands for this and look at a nice hexdump of all fuses and not only > > one at a time. > > There are two methods for getting fuses values, direct memory access, and > explicit sensing. Each method can independently be disabled with two dedicated > protect fuses. How can md choose the right sensing method? By trying one method first and fall back to the other method. > > The IIM block also has an override functionality. Direct memory write to the > fuse row overrides the value in this row. This feature can also be disabled > with an override protect fuse. How does mw know whether you want to blow the > fuses, or just override them? You could override them when iim.writeenable=0 and blow them when iim.writeenable=1. Return failure when the override protect fuse is blown. The fuse_blow/fuse_sense commands do not make this decision either, they use the explicit sensing method hardcoded. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox