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