Hi Francisco,
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 4:38 PM Francisco Iglesias
<frasse.igles...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Bin and Alistair,
>
> On [2020 Dec 02] Wed 11:40:11, Alistair Francis wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 6:55 PM Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Bin Meng <bin.m...@windriver.com>
> > >
> > > SST flashes require a dummy byte after the address bits.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bin.m...@windriver.com>
> >
> > I couldn't find a datasheet that says this... But the actual code
> > change looks fine, so:
> >
> > Acked-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@wdc.com>
> >
> > Alistair
> >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > hw/block/m25p80.c | 3 +++
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/hw/block/m25p80.c b/hw/block/m25p80.c
> > > index 483925f..9b36762 100644
> > > --- a/hw/block/m25p80.c
> > > +++ b/hw/block/m25p80.c
> > > @@ -825,6 +825,9 @@ static void decode_fast_read_cmd(Flash *s)
> > > s->needed_bytes = get_addr_length(s);
> > > switch (get_man(s)) {
> > > /* Dummy cycles - modeled with bytes writes instead of bits */
> > > + case MAN_SST:
> > > + s->needed_bytes += 1;
>
> 1 dummy clk cycle is modelled as 1 byte write (see the comment above), so 1
> dummy byte (8 dummy clk cycles) will need +8 above.
I think you were confused by the WINBOND codes. The comments are
correct. It is modeled with bytes instead of bits, so we should +=1.
> An option could be to fall
> through to the Windbond case below instead (since it seems to operate
> likewise).
>
> Best regards,
> Francisco Iglesias
>
>
> > > + break;
> > > case MAN_WINBOND:
> > > s->needed_bytes += 8;
Actually this is wrong. This should be corrected to +=1. I will
prepare a patch for it.
> > > break;
> > > --
Regards,
Bin
