On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Marek Vasut <ma...@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 <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.
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 */
--
Thanks,
Jagan.
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
