Mitch Bradley wrote:
Okay, having reread the LPC FLASH chip manual, I see what is happening. (My intuition about LPC FLASH devices is deficient because I took a break from doing firmware during the period when Intel was inventing FWH.)
The virtual address range that OFW uses - see pc/virtaddr.fth : fw-virt-base , fw-virt-size - overlaps the physical address range that LPC FLASH chips use. I probably would not have picked that virtual range had I realized that LPC devices decode more address space than they use for the data array.
Address conflicts like this is one of the reasons why virtual=physical address assignment is problematic. [snip]
Thanks for the clear explanation Mitch. I tried to use dynamic virtual address allocation but I have the same problem, which (IMHO) is a confirmation that the trick is at lower lever than virtual addressing.
Thanks anyway & best regards,