[U-Boot] [PATCH] sf: Fix entries for S25FL256S_256K and S25FL512S_256K
Both of these chips have 256kB big sectors, thus the _256K suffix, compared to their _64K counterparts, which have 64kB sectors. Also, they have four times less sectors than their _64K counterparts.
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut marex@denx.de Cc: Jagannadha Sutradharudu Teki jaganna@xilinx.com --- drivers/mtd/spi/sf_params.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Note: Would be nice if someone actually tested this fix as I go by the datasheet and by the old code that _was_ in U-Boot before the rework.
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_params.c b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_params.c index daf8fe7..5f63023 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_params.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_params.c @@ -55,9 +55,9 @@ const struct spi_flash_params spi_flash_params_table[] = { {"S25FL032P", 0x010215, 0x4d00, 64 * 1024, 64, RD_FULL, WR_QPP}, {"S25FL064P", 0x010216, 0x4d00, 64 * 1024, 128, RD_FULL, WR_QPP}, {"S25FL128S_64K", 0x012018, 0x4d01, 64 * 1024, 256, RD_FULL, WR_QPP}, - {"S25FL256S_256K", 0x010219, 0x4d00, 64 * 1024, 512, RD_FULL, WR_QPP}, + {"S25FL256S_256K", 0x010219, 0x4d00, 256 * 1024, 128, RD_FULL, WR_QPP}, {"S25FL256S_64K", 0x010219, 0x4d01, 64 * 1024, 512, RD_FULL, WR_QPP}, - {"S25FL512S_256K", 0x010220, 0x4d00, 64 * 1024, 1024, RD_FULL, WR_QPP}, + {"S25FL512S_256K", 0x010220, 0x4d00, 256 * 1024, 256, RD_FULL, WR_QPP}, {"S25FL512S_64K", 0x010220, 0x4d01, 64 * 1024, 1024, RD_FULL, WR_QPP}, #endif #ifdef CONFIG_SPI_FLASH_STMICRO /* STMICRO */
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 at 03:29:43 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
Both of these chips have 256kB big sectors, thus the _256K suffix, compared to their _64K counterparts, which have 64kB sectors. Also, they have four times less sectors than their _64K counterparts.
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut marex@denx.de Cc: Jagannadha Sutradharudu Teki jaganna@xilinx.com
drivers/mtd/spi/sf_params.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Note: Would be nice if someone actually tested this fix as I go by the datasheet and by the old code that _was_ in U-Boot before the rework.
btw. would be nice to get this one into current release to prevent it being broken. But I would _really_ appreciate some real-hardware testing here.
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_params.c b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_params.c index daf8fe7..5f63023 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_params.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_params.c @@ -55,9 +55,9 @@ const struct spi_flash_params spi_flash_params_table[] = { {"S25FL032P", 0x010215, 0x4d00, 64 * 1024, 64, RD_FULL,
WR_QPP}, {"S25FL064P", 0x010216, 0x4d00, 64 * 1024, 128, RD_FULL, WR_QPP}, {"S25FL128S_64K", 0x012018, 0x4d01, 64
* 1024,
256, RD_FULL, WR_QPP}, - {"S25FL256S_256K", 0x010219,
0x4d00,
64 * 1024, 512, RD_FULL, WR_QPP}, + {"S25FL256S_256K",
0x010219,
0x4d00, 256 * 1024, 128, RD_FULL, WR_QPP}, {"S25FL256S_64K", 0x010219, 0x4d01, 64 * 1024, 512, RD_FULL, WR_QPP},
- {"S25FL512S_256K", 0x010220, 0x4d00, 64 * 1024, 1024, RD_FULL,
WR_QPP}, + {"S25FL512S_256K", 0x010220, 0x4d00, 256 * 1024, 256, RD_FULL, WR_QPP}, {"S25FL512S_64K", 0x010220, 0x4d01, 64
* 1024,
1024, RD_FULL, WR_QPP}, #endif #ifdef CONFIG_SPI_FLASH_STMICRO /* STMICRO */
Best regards, Marek Vasut
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote:
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 at 03:29:43 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
Both of these chips have 256kB big sectors, thus the _256K suffix, compared to their _64K counterparts, which have 64kB sectors. Also, they have four times less sectors than their _64K counterparts.
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut marex@denx.de Cc: Jagannadha Sutradharudu Teki jaganna@xilinx.com
drivers/mtd/spi/sf_params.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Note: Would be nice if someone actually tested this fix as I go by the datasheet and by the old code that _was_ in U-Boot before the rework.
btw. would be nice to get this one into current release to prevent it being broken. But I would _really_ appreciate some real-hardware testing here.
Yes - I'll try it and let us know.
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_params.c b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_params.c index daf8fe7..5f63023 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_params.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_params.c @@ -55,9 +55,9 @@ const struct spi_flash_params spi_flash_params_table[] = { {"S25FL032P", 0x010215, 0x4d00, 64 * 1024, 64, RD_FULL,
WR_QPP}, {"S25FL064P", 0x010216, 0x4d00, 64 * 1024, 128, RD_FULL, WR_QPP}, {"S25FL128S_64K", 0x012018, 0x4d01, 64
- 1024,
256, RD_FULL, WR_QPP}, - {"S25FL256S_256K", 0x010219,
0x4d00,
64 * 1024, 512, RD_FULL, WR_QPP}, + {"S25FL256S_256K",
0x010219,
0x4d00, 256 * 1024, 128, RD_FULL, WR_QPP}, {"S25FL256S_64K", 0x010219, 0x4d01, 64 * 1024, 512, RD_FULL, WR_QPP},
{"S25FL512S_256K", 0x010220, 0x4d00, 64 * 1024, 1024, RD_FULL,WR_QPP}, + {"S25FL512S_256K", 0x010220, 0x4d00, 256 * 1024, 256, RD_FULL, WR_QPP}, {"S25FL512S_64K", 0x010220, 0x4d01, 64
- 1024,
1024, RD_FULL, WR_QPP}, #endif #ifdef CONFIG_SPI_FLASH_STMICRO /* STMICRO */
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 at 04:17:55 PM, Jagan Teki wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote:
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 at 03:29:43 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
Both of these chips have 256kB big sectors, thus the _256K suffix, compared to their _64K counterparts, which have 64kB sectors. Also, they have four times less sectors than their _64K counterparts.
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut marex@denx.de Cc: Jagannadha Sutradharudu Teki jaganna@xilinx.com
drivers/mtd/spi/sf_params.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Note: Would be nice if someone actually tested this fix as I go by the
datasheet and by the old code that _was_ in U-Boot before the rework.btw. would be nice to get this one into current release to prevent it being broken. But I would _really_ appreciate some real-hardware testing here.
Yes - I'll try it and let us know.
Thanks!
Best regards, Marek Vasut
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote:
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 at 04:17:55 PM, Jagan Teki wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote:
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 at 03:29:43 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
Both of these chips have 256kB big sectors, thus the _256K suffix, compared to their _64K counterparts, which have 64kB sectors. Also, they have four times less sectors than their _64K counterparts.
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut marex@denx.de Cc: Jagannadha Sutradharudu Teki jaganna@xilinx.com
drivers/mtd/spi/sf_params.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Note: Would be nice if someone actually tested this fix as I go by the
datasheet and by the old code that _was_ in U-Boot before the rework.btw. would be nice to get this one into current release to prevent it being broken. But I would _really_ appreciate some real-hardware testing here.
Yes - I'll try it and let us know.
Thanks!
Tested on S25FL256S_256K, works fine!
participants (2)
-
Jagan Teki -
Marek Vasut