Hi Jagan,
Yes you are right it has to be 16.
So you want me to and send a patch correcting it?
Or you want me to revert it and send a new patch?
--
Regards,
Rajeshwari Shinde
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Jagan Teki <jagannadh.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Rajeshwari,
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Jagan Teki <jagannadh.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for your response.
>>
>> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Rajeshwari Birje
>> <rajeshwari.bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Jagan,
>>>
>>> Hope following reply answer your query.
>>>
>>> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Jagan Teki <jagannadh.t...@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.t...@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.
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
