Hi Jagan,
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Jagan Teki jagannadh.teki@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Bin,
On 22 April 2015 at 12:44, Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Jagan,
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Jagan Teki jagannadh.teki@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Bin,
On 22 April 2015 at 12:14, Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Jagan,
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 8:47 PM, Jagan Teki jagannadh.teki@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Bin,
On 20 April 2015 at 15:02, Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Jagan,
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Jagan Teki jagannadh.teki@gmail.com wrote: > Hi Bin, > > On 17 April 2015 at 07:14, Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote: >> Hi Jagan, >> >> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:09 AM, Jagan Teki jagannadh.teki@gmail.com wrote: >>> Hi Bin, >>> >>> I think you have a different interpretation of sector size here- >>> >>> /* The size listed here is what works with SPINOR_OP_SE, which isn't >>> * necessarily called a "sector" by the vendor. >>> */ >>> Say for example SST25VF040B has 8 sectors of which each sector size is >>> 64 * 1024 out of this we can use 4K sector erase or 32K sector erase or >>> 64K sector erase through flags. >>> >>> Linux does follow the same- >>> /* SST -- large erase sizes are "overlays", "sectors" are 4K */ >>> { "sst25vf040b", INFO(0xbf258d, 0, 64 * 1024, 8, SECT_4K | >>> SST_WRITE) }, >>> { "sst25vf080b", INFO(0xbf258e, 0, 64 * 1024, 16, SECT_4K | >>> SST_WRITE) }, >>> { "sst25vf016b", INFO(0xbf2541, 0, 64 * 1024, 32, SECT_4K | >>> SST_WRITE) }, >>> { "sst25vf032b", INFO(0xbf254a, 0, 64 * 1024, 64, SECT_4K | >>> SST_WRITE) }, >>> >>> Please check it. >> >> >> Yes, I know this pretty well. And I want to change this behavior, as >> my cover letter says. >> >> Currently the 'sf erase' command operates on a 64KB granularity, while >> the actual erase command is 4KB granularity, which is inconsistent and >> causes confusion. > > It never related to 'sf erase' instead based on the 'params->flags' > sf_probe will decide which erase_cmd with erase_size will use.
No, it is related. See cmd_sf.c:
I'm not getting your point- how could it erase use 64K sector size instead of 4K.
It indeed erases 64K sector size. You need check the logic in spi_flash_validate_params().
We're assigning erase_size to sector_size only when SECT_4K and SECT_32K and for these erase_size becomes direct values, please check this.
You previous email already said: the 'sf erase' command depends on *flash->sector_size*
/* Compute erase sector and command */ if (params->flags & SECT_4K) { flash->erase_cmd = CMD_ERASE_4K; flash->erase_size = 4096; } else if (params->flags & SECT_32K) { flash->erase_cmd = CMD_ERASE_32K; flash->erase_size = 32768; } else { flash->erase_cmd = CMD_ERASE_64K; flash->erase_size = flash->sector_size; }Here the codes says: *flash->erase_size*
So when I give a 'sf erase 0 100' it erase 64KB even if you have SECT_4K.
Example: "SST25WF080", 0xbf2505, 0x0, 64 * 1024, 16, RD_NORM, SECT_4K | SST_WR},
sf probe gives sector_size = 64 * 1024 and erase_size = 4096
sf erase 0 100 sf_parse_len_arg len returns 100 and spi_flash_cmd_erase_ops returns "SF: Erase offset/length not multiple of erase size"
sf erase 0 +100. Sorry for the typo. But looks like you are not really reading the codes.
=> sf probe SF: Detected SST25VF016B with page size 256 Bytes, erase size 4 KiB, total 2 MiB, mapped at ffe00000
=> sf erase 0 +100 SF: 65536 bytes @ 0x0 Erased: OK
Tested on two boards, and both shows 64K was erased.
Example: "SST25WF080", 0xbf2505, 0x0, 64 * 1024, 16, RD_NORM, SST_WR},
sf probe gives sector_size = 64 * 1024 and erase_size = 64 * 1024
sf erase 0 100 sf_parse_len_arg len returns 100 and spi_flash_cmd_erase_ops returns "SF: Erase offset/length not multiple of erase size"
Still have any concerns, please come to IRC for more discussion
Regards, Bin