Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> writes: > On 3/5/19 6:25 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 at 17:21, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >>> But I'd recommend changing/fixing the sector size during the next dev >>> cycle, so we have more time for testing. >> >> Nobody in the upstream dev community is using or testing this board. > > Well I submitted a Avocado test last year: > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-10/msg02749.html > > And I rebase/run it from time to time. > >> The only way we'll find out if there's a problem with changing the >> sector size is to put the change in and get it into a release. >> I would vote for just making the change now. > > I'm happy with this vote, and am sure Markus will be too :) > > Markus: the last field I wasn't sure about without double checking the > code is the @width one. I find it misleading, is that the size of the > data bus or the size of the flash words? Answer: this is the size of the > words in byte. NOR flash devices can not write less data than their word > boundary. > > The S29PL127J60TFI130 only support 16bit words, so using @width=2 is > correct. > > And the winner is.... ta-da! > > pflash_cfi02_register(0x0, NULL, "r2d.flash", FLASH_SIZE, > dinfo ? blk_by_legacy_dinfo(dinfo) : NULL, > - 16 * KiB, FLASH_SIZE >> 16, > - 1, 4, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, > + 64 * KiB, FLASH_SIZE >> 16 /* will get removed > later */, > + 1, 2, 0x0001, 0x227e, 0x2220, 0x2200 > 0x555, 0x2aa, 0);
Sold! [...]
