From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from majordomo by infradead.org with local (Exim 3.20 #2) id 14TKqy-0003fX-00 for mtd-list@infradead.org; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 09:37:32 +0000 Received: from dell-paw-3.cambridge.redhat.com ([195.224.55.237] helo=passion.cambridge.redhat.com) by infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #2) id 14TKqx-0003fR-00 for mtd@infradead.org; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 09:37:31 +0000 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <7118259C3044D311942700508B2CA5BB61AB17@balance.coactive.com> References: <7118259C3044D311942700508B2CA5BB61AB17@balance.coactive.com> To: David Byron Cc: mtd@infradead.org Subject: Re: AMD Flash flaming Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 09:34:08 +0000 Message-ID: <14036.982229648@redhat.com> Sender: owner-mtd@infradead.org List-ID: dbyron@coactive.com said: > I just subscribed to the list a few days ago and caught some > discussion on annoying characteristics of some AMD flash devices. > Turns out we're in the middle of selecting a flash device for a new > platform and one of the choices being considered is the AMD > Am29LV033C. Sorry if this is covered elsewhere, but is this one of > the annoying/busted chips? They're not busted, just annoying. I happen to think the designers were on crack, but the chips are still usable, even though their CFI tables are crap. Even if we have to hard-code a table of chip ID vs. erase block layout, they're usable - unless they've really gone mad and shipped chips with the _same_ JEDEC ID but different layouts. -- dwmw2 To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org