On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 04:25:48PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 01:46:28 +0400
Anton Vorontsov [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

CAT25 chips (as manufactured by On Semiconductor, previously Catalyst
Semiconductor) are similar to the original M25Px0 chips, except:

- Address width can vary (1-2 bytes, in contrast to 3 bytes in M25P
  chips). So, implement convenient m25p_addr2cmd() and m25p_cmdsz()
  calls, and place address width information into flash_info struct;

- Page size can vary, therefore we shouldn't hardcode it, so get rid
  of FLASH_PAGESIZE definition, and place the page size information
  into flash_info struct;

- CAT25 EEPROMs don't need to be erased, so add NO_ERASE flag, and
  propagate it to the mtd subsystem.

This patch (still) doesn't know about the mx25l3205d, mx25l12805d and
mx25l12855e devices.

Yes, support for these chips commited on Fri, 4 Sep 2009 08:40:27
+0000 (09:40 +0100). And the patch dated 19 Aug.

I randomly did this:

->	{ "mx25l3205d", INFO(0xc22016, 0, 64 * 1024, 64, 256, 3, 0) },
->	{ "mx25l6405d", INFO(0xc22017, 0, 64 * 1024, 128, 256, 3, 0) },
	{ "mx25l12805d", INFO(0xc22018, 0, 64 * 1024, 256, 256, 3, 0) },
->	{ "mx25l12855e", INFO(0xc22618, 0, 64 * 1024, 256, 256, 3, 0) },

Looks correct, thanks a lot.

-- 
Anton Vorontsov
email: cbouatmailru@gmail.com
irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2