| Message ID | 1389796183-5251-1-git-send-email-marex@denx.de |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Delegated to: | Jagannadha Sutradharudu Teki |
| Headers | show |
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
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 */
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
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!
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 */
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.