On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 1:46 AM, Hatim Kanchwala <ha...@hatimak.me> wrote:
> On Friday 12 February 2016 01:18 AM, Hatim Kanchwala wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Hatim Kanchwala <ha...@hatimak.me>
>> ---
>> flashchips.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> flashchips.h | 1 +
>> 2 files changed, 41 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/flashchips.c b/flashchips.c
>> index c60514b..26a8d89 100644
>> --- a/flashchips.c
>> +++ b/flashchips.c
>> @@ -6246,20 +6246,60 @@ const struct flashchip flashchips[] = {
>> }
>> },
>> .printlock = spi_prettyprint_status_register_plain, /*
>> TODO: improve */
>> .unlock = spi_disable_blockprotect,
>> .write = spi_chip_write_256,
>> .read = spi_chip_read,
>> .voltage = {2700, 3600},
>> },
>>
>> {
>> + .vendor = "GigaDevice",
>> + .name = "GD25VQ41B",
>> + .bustype = BUS_SPI,
>> + .manufacture_id = GIGADEVICE_ID,
>> + .model_id = GIGADEVICE_GD25VQ41B,
>> + .total_size = 512,
>> + .page_size = 256,
>> + /* OTP: 3 * 512B total; read 0x48, write 0x42, erase 0x44 */
>> + .feature_bits = FEATURE_WRSR_WREN | FEATURE_OTP |
>> FEATURE_QPI,
These arent "truly/100%" OTP, but one-time-lockable "security
registers" - the effect is most likely
the same (=if they're used they're most likely locked and that makes
them effectively ROM), so
I'm ok with the FEATURE_OTP, but maybe change the comment, my suggestion:
/* Lockable Security Registers: 3 * 512B pages, read 0x48, write 0x42,
erase 0x44 */
--
Urja Rannikko
_______________________________________________
flashrom mailing list
flashrom@flashrom.org
http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
