Re: spi-nor: maxronix MX25L12835F support

Tudor.Ambarus
2021-02-18T08:50:05Z

On 2/18/21 9:56 AM, Tudor Ambarus - M18064 wrote:
> Hi, Zhengxun, Mason,
>
> On 2/18/21 7:45 AM, zhengxunli@mxic.com.tw wrote:
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> <Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com> wrote on 2021/02/16 下午 07:15:33:
>>
>>> <Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com>
>>> 2021/02/16 下午 07:15
>>>
>>> To
>>>
>>> <michael@walle.cc>, <p.yadav@ti.com>, <ycllin@mxic.com.tw>,
>>> <zhengxunli@mxic.com.tw>, <juliensu@mxic.com.tw>,
>>>
>>> cc
>>>
>>> <heiko.thiery@gmail.com>, <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>
>>>
>>> Subject
>>>
>>> Re: spi-nor: maxronix MX25L12835F support
>>>
>>> Hi, all,
>>>
>>> +zhengxunli, juliensu & ycllin
>>>
>>> On 2/16/21 11:48 AM, Michael Walle wrote:
>>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you
>>> know the content is safe
>>>>
>>>> Am 2021-02-16 10:27, schrieb Pratyush Yadav:
>>>>> On 15/02/21 10:53PM, Heiko Thiery wrote:
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I faced an issue with a SPI flash on our board. We use a macronix
>>>>>> MX25L12835F [1]. Unfortunately this flash has the same JEDEC ID like
>>>>>> the MX25L12805D [2].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The newer MX25L12835F has support for dual/quad read mode and RDSFDP
>>>>>> while the older doesn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought that I could do a fixup with a device specific
>>>>>> post_bfpt_fixups() call but by now this seems not possible. The
>> older
>>>>>> MX25L12805D has no flags set that allows a call to
>>>>>> spi_nor_sfdp_init_params() and implements the fixup.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Has anyone an idea how to solve this?
>>>
>>> Maybe macronix can help with some suggestions on how to differentiate
>>> between flashes at runtime.
>>
>> In fact, the duplicate ID also caused us trouble. Maybe you can refer to
>> our colleagues' patches and add a new ID before the old ID.
>>
>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-mtd/patch/1587631123-25474-2-git-send-email-masonccyang@mxic.com.tw/
>>
>
> No, that patch is wrong because mx66l51235l will no longer be
> detected. I see that mx66l51235l also supports SECT_4K, as
> mx25l51245g does. Do you know why Mason added a new flash ID?
> Was it just to get the new flash name? I'll send a patch right
> now to correct this.
>

I'll wait a bit, I see there's something else about mx66l51235l: