Thread (133 messages) flat view 133 messages, 5 authors, 2021-11-06

Re: [PATCH v2 06/35] mtd: spi-nor: manuf-id-collisions: Add support for xt25f128b

From: <hidden>
Date: 2021-07-28 04:13:36

On 7/27/21 6:52 PM, Chris Morgan wrote:
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 07:51:53AM +0300, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
quoted
Flash does not support continuation codes and may collide with a flash
of other manufacturer, Intersil being an example .

Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <redacted>
---
0000000 4653 5044 0100 ff01 0000 0901 0030 ff00
0000010 000b 0301 0060 ff00 ffff ffff ffff ffff
0000020 ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff
0000030 20e5 fff1 ffff 07ff eb44 6b08 3b08 bb42
0000040 ffee ffff ffff ff00 ffff ff00 200c 520f
0000050 d810 ff00 ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff
0000060 3600 2700 f99f 6477 e8d9 ffff

 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/manuf-id-collisions.c | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/manuf-id-collisions.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/manuf-id-collisions.c
index bf7dba34f018..db31470ebf6a 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/manuf-id-collisions.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/manuf-id-collisions.c
@@ -13,6 +13,10 @@ static const struct flash_info id_collision_parts[] = {
      { "by25q128as", INFO(0x684018, 0, 64 * 1024, 256, SPI_NOR_SKIP_SFDP |
                           SECT_4K | SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ | SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ |
                           SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK | SPI_NOR_HAS_TB) },
+
+     /* XTX (XTX Technology Limited) */
+     { "xt25f128b", INFO(0x0b4018, 0, 64 * 1024, 256, SPI_NOR_PARSE_SFDP |
+                         SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK | SPI_NOR_HAS_TB) },
My apologies for being ignorant of this, but I'm not 100% sure of these
two values (SPI_NOR_HAS_LOCK and SPI_NOR_HAS_TB), even though I
Oh yes, I forgot you have already mentioned this in the previous email thread.
included them in my original commit. Looking at the datasheet for this
I can see that there are 5 block protect bits (BP0 - BP4) corresponding
to status registers SR2 through SR6. Status register bits SR7 and SR8
correspond to "status register protect 0 and status register protect 1"
bits as well. The Rockchip engineer I was testing the SFC with did
not have these flags as well on their driver they were using for this
chip too. I have tested with and without, and they seem to work
regardless. Is there a way to know for sure if these should or should
not be here?
We should do some locking tests to verify if these flags are ok for
this flash.
Here is a link to the datasheet I was working off of:
https://datasheet.lcsc.com/szlcsc/2005251034_XTX-XT25F128BSSIGT_C558844.pdf
I'll take a look and try to provide some guidelines on how the locking part
can be tested.
When this is confirmed I'll be glad to provide my "Tested-by" line.
Cool, thanks! 
ta
Thank you.
quoted
 };

 const struct spi_nor_manufacturer spi_nor_manuf_id_collisions = {
--
2.25.1
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help