Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <[email protected]> writes: > On 3/4/19 4:33 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <[email protected]> writes: >>> On 3/4/19 8:25 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>>> Magnus Damm <[email protected]> writes: >>>>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 2:31 AM Markus Armbruster <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Perhaps Magnus, who maintains the machine, can pick a new value for us. >>>>> >>>>> According to the old board user document in Japanese (under NDA) what >>>>> is referred to as FROM (Area0) is connected via a 32-bit bus and CS0 >>>>> to CN8. The docs mention s29pl127j60tfi130 but since I don't have the >>>>> board handy ATM I don't know how the chips are connected. >>>>> >>>>> Hope this helps, >>>> >>>> If you want me to change our emulated flash memory's size, please give >>>> me a number. >>> >>> datasheet "S29PL-J 002-00615 Rev. *E": >>> https://www.cypress.com/file/207091/download >>> >>> The S29PL127J60TFI130 is a 128Mbit NOR pflash addressable in words of 16bit. >>> >>> 128Mbit = 16 MiB >>> >>> At least it matches the "RTS7751R2D Handling Manual"! >>> https://elinux.org/RTS7751R2D_Handling_Manual#Kernel_start_from_FROM_extension_card_.28Kernel_space_XIP.29 >>> >>> PL127J: >>> - 4 Banks >>> -> we don't model banks. >>> - sectors of 4Kw and 32Kw >>> -> we don't model different sector size and only use the >>> biggest available >>> >>> sector_size = 32Kw = 64KiB // sector_len >>> (naive) sector_count = 256 // nb_blocs >>> >>> ManufID: 0001h >>> DeviceID: 227Eh 2220h 2200h >>> >>> I understand "connected via a 32-bit bus and CS0 to CN8" as the full >>> device wordsize is addressable, so this device >>> >>> So in pflash_cfi02_register() format: >>> >>> - name = "FROM (Area0)" >>> - size = 16 * MiB >>> - sector_len = 64 * KiB >>> - nb_blocs = 256 >>> - nb_mappings = 1? /* Machine specific... */ >>> - width = 2 >>> - id0 = 0x0001 >>> - id1 = 0x227e >>> - id2 = 0x2220 >>> - id3 = 0x2200 >>> - unlock_addr0 = 0x555, >>> - unlock_addr1 = 0x2aa >>> - be = 0 /* Arch specific... */ >>> >>> Which hopefully is very similar to what we currently use :) >> >> 'fraid not: > > I was trying to be sarcastic :/
And I fell for it, should've known better %-}
