On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 20:40:44 -0700 David Hendricks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Stefan Tauner < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > did you really test the 1.8V version too? > > > > Nope. We can set that to UNTESTED if you prefer, though I don't think > there's much reason to suspect it will fail when the 3V version works. Nope, but i don't trust any vendor too much. We have burned often enough (SFDP compatibility for example... ;) > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Stefan Tauner < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > .probe = probe_spi_rdid, > > > .probe_timing = TIMING_ZERO, > > > @@ -5450,9 +5454,44 @@ > > > .unlock = spi_disable_blockprotect, > > > .write = spi_chip_write_256, > > > .read = spi_chip_read, > > > + .voltage = {1700, 2000}, > > > }, > > > > > > { > > > + .vendor = "Numonyx", > > > + /* ..3E = 3V, uniform 64KB/4KB blocks/sectors */ > > > + .name = "N25Q064..3E", > > > + .bustype = BUS_SPI, > > > + .manufacture_id = ST_ID, > > > + .model_id = ST_N25Q064__3E, > > > + .total_size = 8192, > > > + .page_size = 256, > > > + /* supports SFDP */ > > > > Does it work as expected (testable by removing the chip definition)? > > > > Obviously not or I wouldn't have bothered to make a patch for it :-) In case you ever get the chance to test this again, i would really like to see the SFDP debug output. The SFDP implementation is still not tested very much, so there still might be bugs, even if faulty chips are more likely imo. Acked-by: Stefan Tauner <[email protected]> and committed in r1612, thanks! -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
