* [U-Boot] [PATCH] sf: Fix entries for S25FL256S_256K and S25FL512S_256K
@ 2014-01-15 14:29 Marek Vasut
2014-01-15 14:36 ` Marek Vasut
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Marek Vasut @ 2014-01-15 14:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Both of these chips have 256kB big sectors, thus the _256K suffix,
compared to their _64K counterparts, which have 64kB sectors. Also,
they have four times less sectors than their _64K counterparts.
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
Cc: Jagannadha Sutradharudu Teki <jaganna@xilinx.com>
---
drivers/mtd/spi/sf_params.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Note: Would be nice if someone actually tested this fix as I go by the
datasheet and by the old code that _was_ in U-Boot before the rework.
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_params.c b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_params.c
index daf8fe7..5f63023 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_params.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_params.c
@@ -55,9 +55,9 @@ const struct spi_flash_params spi_flash_params_table[] = {
{"S25FL032P", 0x010215, 0x4d00, 64 * 1024, 64, RD_FULL, WR_QPP},
{"S25FL064P", 0x010216, 0x4d00, 64 * 1024, 128, RD_FULL, WR_QPP},
{"S25FL128S_64K", 0x012018, 0x4d01, 64 * 1024, 256, RD_FULL, WR_QPP},
- {"S25FL256S_256K", 0x010219, 0x4d00, 64 * 1024, 512, RD_FULL, WR_QPP},
+ {"S25FL256S_256K", 0x010219, 0x4d00, 256 * 1024, 128, RD_FULL, WR_QPP},
{"S25FL256S_64K", 0x010219, 0x4d01, 64 * 1024, 512, RD_FULL, WR_QPP},
- {"S25FL512S_256K", 0x010220, 0x4d00, 64 * 1024, 1024, RD_FULL, WR_QPP},
+ {"S25FL512S_256K", 0x010220, 0x4d00, 256 * 1024, 256, RD_FULL, WR_QPP},
{"S25FL512S_64K", 0x010220, 0x4d01, 64 * 1024, 1024, RD_FULL, WR_QPP},
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_SPI_FLASH_STMICRO /* STMICRO */
--
1.8.5.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* [U-Boot] [PATCH] sf: Fix entries for S25FL256S_256K and S25FL512S_256K
2014-01-15 14:29 [U-Boot] [PATCH] sf: Fix entries for S25FL256S_256K and S25FL512S_256K Marek Vasut
@ 2014-01-15 14:36 ` Marek Vasut
2014-01-15 15:17 ` Jagan Teki
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Marek Vasut @ 2014-01-15 14:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 at 03:29:43 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Both of these chips have 256kB big sectors, thus the _256K suffix,
> compared to their _64K counterparts, which have 64kB sectors. Also,
> they have four times less sectors than their _64K counterparts.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
> Cc: Jagannadha Sutradharudu Teki <jaganna@xilinx.com>
> ---
> drivers/mtd/spi/sf_params.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Note: Would be nice if someone actually tested this fix as I go by the
> datasheet and by the old code that _was_ in U-Boot before the rework.
btw. would be nice to get this one into current release to prevent it being
broken. But I would _really_ appreciate some real-hardware testing here.
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_params.c b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_params.c
> index daf8fe7..5f63023 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_params.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_params.c
> @@ -55,9 +55,9 @@ const struct spi_flash_params spi_flash_params_table[] =
> { {"S25FL032P", 0x010215, 0x4d00, 64 * 1024, 64, RD_FULL,
> WR_QPP}, {"S25FL064P", 0x010216, 0x4d00, 64 * 1024, 128,
> RD_FULL, WR_QPP}, {"S25FL128S_64K", 0x012018, 0x4d01, 64
* 1024,
> 256, RD_FULL, WR_QPP}, - {"S25FL256S_256K", 0x010219,
0x4d00,
> 64 * 1024, 512, RD_FULL, WR_QPP}, + {"S25FL256S_256K",
0x010219,
> 0x4d00, 256 * 1024, 128, RD_FULL, WR_QPP}, {"S25FL256S_64K",
> 0x010219, 0x4d01, 64 * 1024, 512, RD_FULL, WR_QPP},
> - {"S25FL512S_256K", 0x010220, 0x4d00, 64 * 1024, 1024, RD_FULL,
> WR_QPP}, + {"S25FL512S_256K", 0x010220, 0x4d00, 256 * 1024, 256,
> RD_FULL, WR_QPP}, {"S25FL512S_64K", 0x010220, 0x4d01, 64
* 1024,
> 1024, RD_FULL, WR_QPP}, #endif
> #ifdef CONFIG_SPI_FLASH_STMICRO /* STMICRO */
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* [U-Boot] [PATCH] sf: Fix entries for S25FL256S_256K and S25FL512S_256K
2014-01-15 14:36 ` Marek Vasut
@ 2014-01-15 15:17 ` Jagan Teki
2014-01-15 15:41 ` Marek Vasut
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jagan Teki @ 2014-01-15 15:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 at 03:29:43 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> Both of these chips have 256kB big sectors, thus the _256K suffix,
>> compared to their _64K counterparts, which have 64kB sectors. Also,
>> they have four times less sectors than their _64K counterparts.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
>> Cc: Jagannadha Sutradharudu Teki <jaganna@xilinx.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/mtd/spi/sf_params.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> Note: Would be nice if someone actually tested this fix as I go by the
>> datasheet and by the old code that _was_ in U-Boot before the rework.
>
> btw. would be nice to get this one into current release to prevent it being
> broken. But I would _really_ appreciate some real-hardware testing here.
Yes - I'll try it and let us know.
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_params.c b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_params.c
>> index daf8fe7..5f63023 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_params.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_params.c
>> @@ -55,9 +55,9 @@ const struct spi_flash_params spi_flash_params_table[] =
>> { {"S25FL032P", 0x010215, 0x4d00, 64 * 1024, 64, RD_FULL,
>
>> WR_QPP}, {"S25FL064P", 0x010216, 0x4d00, 64 * 1024, 128,
>> RD_FULL, WR_QPP}, {"S25FL128S_64K", 0x012018, 0x4d01, 64
> * 1024,
>> 256, RD_FULL, WR_QPP}, - {"S25FL256S_256K", 0x010219,
> 0x4d00,
>> 64 * 1024, 512, RD_FULL, WR_QPP}, + {"S25FL256S_256K",
> 0x010219,
>> 0x4d00, 256 * 1024, 128, RD_FULL, WR_QPP}, {"S25FL256S_64K",
>> 0x010219, 0x4d01, 64 * 1024, 512, RD_FULL, WR_QPP},
>> - {"S25FL512S_256K", 0x010220, 0x4d00, 64 * 1024, 1024, RD_FULL,
>
>> WR_QPP}, + {"S25FL512S_256K", 0x010220, 0x4d00, 256 * 1024, 256,
>> RD_FULL, WR_QPP}, {"S25FL512S_64K", 0x010220, 0x4d01, 64
> * 1024,
>> 1024, RD_FULL, WR_QPP}, #endif
>> #ifdef CONFIG_SPI_FLASH_STMICRO /* STMICRO */
--
Thanks,
Jagan.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* [U-Boot] [PATCH] sf: Fix entries for S25FL256S_256K and S25FL512S_256K
2014-01-15 15:17 ` Jagan Teki
@ 2014-01-15 15:41 ` Marek Vasut
2014-01-16 14:54 ` Jagan Teki
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Marek Vasut @ 2014-01-15 15:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 at 04:17:55 PM, Jagan Teki wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 at 03:29:43 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >> Both of these chips have 256kB big sectors, thus the _256K suffix,
> >> compared to their _64K counterparts, which have 64kB sectors. Also,
> >> they have four times less sectors than their _64K counterparts.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
> >> Cc: Jagannadha Sutradharudu Teki <jaganna@xilinx.com>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> drivers/mtd/spi/sf_params.c | 4 ++--
> >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> Note: Would be nice if someone actually tested this fix as I go by the
> >>
> >> datasheet and by the old code that _was_ in U-Boot before the
> >> rework.
> >
> > btw. would be nice to get this one into current release to prevent it
> > being broken. But I would _really_ appreciate some real-hardware testing
> > here.
>
> Yes - I'll try it and let us know.
Thanks!
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] sf: Fix entries for S25FL256S_256K and S25FL512S_256K
2014-01-15 15:41 ` Marek Vasut
@ 2014-01-16 14:54 ` Jagan Teki
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jagan Teki @ 2014-01-16 14:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 at 04:17:55 PM, Jagan Teki wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 at 03:29:43 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> >> Both of these chips have 256kB big sectors, thus the _256K suffix,
>> >> compared to their _64K counterparts, which have 64kB sectors. Also,
>> >> they have four times less sectors than their _64K counterparts.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
>> >> Cc: Jagannadha Sutradharudu Teki <jaganna@xilinx.com>
>> >> ---
>> >>
>> >> drivers/mtd/spi/sf_params.c | 4 ++--
>> >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> Note: Would be nice if someone actually tested this fix as I go by the
>> >>
>> >> datasheet and by the old code that _was_ in U-Boot before the
>> >> rework.
>> >
>> > btw. would be nice to get this one into current release to prevent it
>> > being broken. But I would _really_ appreciate some real-hardware testing
>> > here.
>>
>> Yes - I'll try it and let us know.
>
> Thanks!
Tested on S25FL256S_256K, works fine!
--
Thanks,
Jagan.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-01-16 14:54 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-01-15 14:29 [U-Boot] [PATCH] sf: Fix entries for S25FL256S_256K and S25FL512S_256K Marek Vasut
2014-01-15 14:36 ` Marek Vasut
2014-01-15 15:17 ` Jagan Teki
2014-01-15 15:41 ` Marek Vasut
2014-01-16 14:54 ` Jagan Teki
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox