Reply by "tit...@gmail.com [rabbit-semi]"●April 10, 20192019-04-10
I see (line 967) cmd8_success = (cmd_reply.reply_buffer[4] ==
CMD8_CHECK_PATTERN) => cmd8_success equals "true"
The strangest thing is that FAT_SHELL.C always works
If I turn on the card, run FAT_SHELL.C and finally run my program, my program
also works.
Reply by "Tom...@tomlogic.com [rabbit-semi]"●April 9, 20192019-04-09
Hmmm. This is interesting. It could be a timing issue of some sort.
If cmd_reply.reply is 5, that would somehow indicate (R1_ILLEGAL_COMMAND |
R1_IDLE_STATE). We could alter the previous check to see if the R1_IDLE_STATE
bit is set, but then we’d be ignore the error.
I’m not clear on why it’s triggering R1_ILLEGAL_COMMAND.
I assume you’ve enabled SDFLASH_SDHC because of the size of your SD card.
Are you seeing cmd8_success in the first half of that function?
There could be some issue with the SPI lines going to the SD card and not
resetting the card properly when starting up in debug mode.
-Tom > On Mar 27, 2019, at 6:03 AM, t...@gmail.com
[rabbit-semi] wrote:
>
> Even if the FAT_SHELL.C sample works flawlessly (the SD card has two 2GB FAT16
partitions) the function "sspec_automount(SSPEC_MOUNT_ANY, ..." returns "2" at
the beginning of the "main" in my project.
> The problem arises exactly here:
https://github.com/digidotcom/DCRabbit_10/blob/master/Lib/Rabbit4000/SDflash/SDFLASH.LIB#L993
At the second iteration (j=1) cmd_reply.reply == 5.
>
> This strange behavior occurs only in debug, and does not occur if I run
FAT_SHELL.C right before compiling and executing my code.
>
> For now it's just a little annoying, but I'm posting it anyway:
maybe someone has a clue about the possible cause.
Reply by "tit...@gmail.com [rabbit-semi]"●March 27, 20192019-03-27
Even if the FAT_SHELL.C sample works flawlessly (the SD card has two 2GB FAT16
partitions) the function "sspec_automount(SSPEC_MOUNT_ANY, ..." returns "2" at
the beginning of the "main" in my project.