Re: (No Subject)

[Masami Komiya <mkomiya@crossnet.co.jp>]

David Woodhouse wrote:
> 
> mkomiya@crossnet.co.jp said:
> >  I was misunderstanding about the definitions in cfi_probe_chip().
> > Attached patch is for cfi_cmdset_0002.c applied simon's patch.
> 
> Looks like you mean it's for cfi_cmdset_0002.c _without_ Simon's patch. It
> looks fine to me - I'll give it a day or so for people to object before I
> apply it though :)

Last patch needs Simon's patch. If you does not want to change
CFI_DEVICETYPE_X8 to cfi->device_type, please use following.

(twice 0x2aa is equal to 0x554 :-)

*** cfi_probe.c.org	Wed Apr 18 17:26:35 2001
--- cfi_probe.c	Wed Apr 25 21:39:23 2001
***************
*** 202,209 ****
  		cfi->addr_unlock2=0x2aa; 
  		break;
  	case CFI_DEVICETYPE_X16:
! 		cfi->addr_unlock1=0xaaa; 
! 		cfi->addr_unlock2=0x555; 
  		break;
  	case CFI_DEVICETYPE_X32:
  		cfi->addr_unlock1=0x1555; 
--- 202,214 ----
  		cfi->addr_unlock2=0x2aa; 
  		break;
  	case CFI_DEVICETYPE_X16:
! 		cfi->addr_unlock1=0xaaa;
! 		if (map->buswidth == 2) {
! 			cfi->addr_unlock2=0x554; 
! 		}
! 		else {
! 			cfi->addr_unlock2=0x555; 
! 		}
  		break;
  	case CFI_DEVICETYPE_X32:
  		cfi->addr_unlock1=0x1555;


To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org