Hi Rajeshwari,
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Jagan Teki jagannadh.teki@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for your response.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Rajeshwari Birje rajeshwari.birje@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Jagan,
Hope following reply answer your query.
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Jagan Teki jagannadh.teki@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Any update on this, is this a different part w.r.t what I refer for?
Thanks, Jagan.
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Jagan Teki jagannadh.teki@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rajeshwari,
{.id = 0x5014,is this id code is correct? it seems like 0x4014
When you see the datasheet of W25Q80BW page 16, the table says its 5014h
.nr_blocks = 128,nr_blocks must be 16 i think?
We use W25Q80BW which is 8MB, hence it is correct as per following calculation; flash->size = 4096 * 16 * params->nr_blocks;
Yes, it is 8M-BIT so the nr_blocks should be 16 to calculate the flash size as 1Mbyte.
-- Thanks, Jagan.
.name = "W25Q80",},};
Honestly the commit message itself is wrong, i guess.
Yes this I agree is my fault, but wonder how it went in through all the reviews.
1. Can you please revert this patch, as commit message not looks good me and also some incorrect nr_blocks Please mentioned the exact details on commit message body "reason for reverting" 2. And also send one more patch with a proper details. [exact name, nr_blocks .etc]
--- Thanks, Jagan.