On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 04:28:28 +0100 Andrew Morgan <[email protected]> wrote:
> AT49F010 patch is basically a copy of the existing AT49F020 code, but > with half the size and the correct ID. > The log was from a write of random data, after the chip already > contained different random data. I did separate read, erase, write tests > before but this log seems to show that PREW all work. > > CAT28F512 I have successfully probed and read data from, but erase > fails. Could be because it needs 12v VPP. The CAT28F512 I have is > soldered on to a NIC. I haven't investigated if VPP is connected at all > yet. Thought I'd include the patch as-is anyway. > > Both patches: > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morgan <[email protected]> > hello andrew and thanks for the patches! btw patch_es_: please post one per mail in the future, because patchwork seems to be too dumb to recognize multiple patches in one mail (http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/3395/). review of the AT49F010 patch follows: > Index: flashchips.c > =================================================================== > --- flashchips.c (revision 1422) > +++ flashchips.c (working copy) > @@ -2218,6 +2218,30 @@ > > { > .vendor = "Atmel", > + .name = "AT49F010", .name = "AT49(H)F010", The H version is just a faster version (but with same VCC). > + .bustype = BUS_PARALLEL, > + .manufacture_id = ATMEL_ID, > + .model_id = ATMEL_AT49F010, > + .total_size = 128, > + .page_size = 128, should probably be 256 for now (semantics are different for each chip driver for parallel chips afaik and it does not matter for jedec routines iirc. NB: page_size is in bytes, so syncing it with total_size does not make sense.)... > + .feature_bits = FEATURE_EITHER_RESET, > + .tested = TEST_OK_PREW, > + .probe = probe_jedec, > + .probe_timing = TIMING_ZERO, /* Datasheet has no timing info > specified */ > + .block_erasers = > + { > + { > + .eraseblocks = { {128 * 1024, 1} }, > + .block_erase = erase_chip_block_jedec, > + } > + }, > + .write = write_jedec_1, > + .read = read_memmapped, > + .voltage = {4500, 5500}, > + }, > + > + { > + .vendor = "Atmel", > .name = "AT49F020", > .bustype = BUS_PARALLEL, > .manufacture_id = ATMEL_ID, > Index: flashchips.h > =================================================================== > --- flashchips.h (revision 1422) > +++ flashchips.h (working copy) > @@ -181,6 +181,7 @@ > #define ATMEL_AT45DB642 /* No ID available */ > #define ATMEL_AT45DB642D 0x2800 > #define ATMEL_AT49BV512 0x03 > +#define ATMEL_AT49F010 0x17 /* Also AT49HF010 */ correct id, but the comment should be /* Same as AT49HF010 */ to be consistent. > #define ATMEL_AT49F020 0x0B > #define ATMEL_AT49F002N 0x07 /* for AT49F002(N) */ > #define ATMEL_AT49F002NT 0x08 /* for AT49F002(N)T */ this chip and also the 2 Mb and 4 Mb versions support a boot block protection that can be detected by software. it would be nice to add a .printlock function to do this and inform the user. i have seen the scheme before. Maybe there is already code in flashrom... but it is not that important. Adding the 4 Mb version OTOH is trivial (ID 0x13) and would be appreciated. Nevertheless after addressing the in-line comments this patch is: Acked-by: Stefan Tauner <[email protected]> do you have commit rights? -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
