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 <ma...@denx.de>
> Cc: Jagannadha Sutradharudu Teki <jaga...@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
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
