On Saturday, August 28, 2010 18:15:43 Reinhard Meyer wrote:
Dear Mike Frysinger,
On Thursday, August 26, 2010 16:00:50 Reinhard Meyer wrote: interesting, but what if we push it further. something like this (untested):
That code does not address the following issues to complete extend:
- JEDEC conformant that have ID in first byte
- JEDEC conformant that have ID in later byte
why doesnt it ? look at the structure i created a bit closer as well as the code that parses it.
The question that remains is if any ID can be assigned twice in different positions and them meaning different manufacturers?
7f 7f 7f 7f 7f 7f c2 = ramtron
{ 6, 0xc2, ramtron_probe, },
7f 7f 7f c2 = some other manufacturer?
{ 3, 0xc2, some_other_manu_probe, },
- non JEDEC conformant or those that do not honor the read-id command
and thus present 0xff _if_ the MISO line is pulled up
that isnt really changed at all by my patch. there is a simple idcode[0] == 0xff branch for people to call probe functions which are prepared to handle non-jedec compatible probes. -mike