-----Original Message----- From: Mike Frysinger [mailto:vapier@gentoo.org] Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 11:31 PM To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Cc: Prafulla Wadaskar; Manas Saksena; Ronen Shitrit; Nicolas Pitre; Ashish Karkare; Prabhanjan Sarnaik; Lennert Buijtenhek Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] sf: Macronix additional chips supported
On Friday 03 July 2009 13:28:01 Prafulla Wadaskar wrote:
new chips supported:- MX25L1605D, MX25L3205D, MX25L6405D, MX25L12855E out of which MX25L6405D and MX25L12855E tested on Kirkwood platforms
Modified the Macronix flash support to use 2 bytes of device id instead of 1 This was required to support MX25L12855E
Contributor: Piyush Shah spiyush@marvell.com
a contributor really should be a signed-off-by
I will correct this
<snip>
- {
.idcode0 = MXIC_ID_MT_MX2512855E,.idcode1 = MXIC_ID_MD_MX2512855E,.page_size = 256,.pages_per_sector = 16,.sectors_per_block = 16,.nr_blocks = 256,.name = "MX25L12855E",- },
};
can you compare the code size to see if combining the id's in a u16 is better than comparing multiple u8's ?
At this moment we can save 28bytes with above suggestions, but Mx25L12805D and MX25L12855E have different memory types (0x20, 0x26 resp), and they have different protection algorithm features which I was trying to expose through "protect" command interface in my next patch, then we will need this abstraction. So I wish to keep this. What do you think?
and creating a dedicated list of defines for the id's isnt really necessary. using them inline in the structure itself is fine.
This is taken care...
Change log:- v2: white space removed for clean patch apply build error fixed
looks like you broke whitespace in this version. you changed these if statements to use leading spaces, not tabs.
:-)
Regards.. Prafulla . .