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 14DaoV-0001k6-00 for mtd-list@infradead.org; Tue, 02 Jan 2001 23:25:55 +0000 Message-ID: <3A5263C6.31F5D67D@mvista.com> Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 15:27:03 -0800 From: Alice Hennessy MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Woodhouse CC: mark.langsdorf@amd.com, mtd@infradead.org Subject: Re: CFI ident problems with AMD chips. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-mtd@infradead.org List-ID: David Woodhouse wrote: > On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, Alice Hennessy wrote: > > > > Is there some way to tell the top-boot parts apart from the bottom-boot > > > parts? > > > > In the Am29DL322D/323D/324D spec, there's a Top/Bottom Boot Sector Flag at > > the end of the Primary Vendor-Specific Extended Query at address 4F (word mode) > > > > where 02 = bottom, 03 = top. I haven't tried it yet. > > Ah - hadn't found that bit, thanks. I'll poke at it in the morning. > > So, are the chips violating the CFI spec by recording the blocks in a > strange order, or does the CFI spec not actually guarantee an _ordering_ > on the erase regions? It's not clear which is the case - either way, > _someone_ seems to be on crack here. > > -- > dwmw2 I don't see any specific language that states that the regions have to be in order (too obvious to mention). BTW, I tried it and it gives the correct value for my top boot device. Alice To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org