On 12 November 2014 07:57, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jagan, > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Jagan, >> >> On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Jagan Teki <jagannadh.t...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 1 November 2014 14:23, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> This series fix several bugs in current ICH SPI driver as well as >>>> adding byte program support for the SST25* flash. >>>> >>>> Flash params are updated to explicitly list supported read commands >>>> and change flash sector size to 4KiB as long as flash supports >>>> sector erase (20h) command. >>>> >>>> Changes for v2: >>>> - Rebased to u-boot-spi/mater. >>>> - Reviewed and updated the params of all currently supported flash >>>> parts per their datasheets. >>>> - Corrected AT25DF321 JEDEC ID. >>>> - Corrected Atmel bulk erase command to 50h instead of D8h. >>>> - Added AT25DF321A, W25X10, W25X20, W25X80 params. >>>> >>>> >>>> Bin Meng (12): >>>> spi/ich.c: Fix a bug of reading from a non-64 bytes aligned address >>>> spi/ich.c: Set the rx operation mode for ich 7 >>>> spi: sf: Support byte program for sst spi flash >>>> sf: Update SST flash params >>>> sf: Update Atmel flash params >>>> sf: Update EON flash params >>>> sf: Update GigaDevice flash params >>>> sf: Update Macronix flash params >>>> sf: Update Spansion flash params >>>> sf: Update Micron flash params >>>> sf: Update Winbond flash params >>>> sf: Give proper spacing between flash table params >>> >>> I think you combined two or more changes(unrelated) in a common patches and >>> Added Bulk erase support in e_cmd_rd of sf_params ie quite not correct. >> >> Do you mean I should let PATCH 1/2/3 go as a separate patch set? Since >> these 3 are tested on my x86 board, could it be Simon to pick up these >> patches instead of through the u-boot-spi? Also I don't understand you >> comments about "adding bulk erase support in e_cmd_rd is not correct". >> The e_cmd_rd in sf_params is updated to specify all supported read >> commands the flash can support. There is no bulk erase here. >> >>> Please fix those and send me one more. >>> >>> Mean while I will look at your scenario like you're controller only >>> supports AS, >>> As I said before as AS of AF both are similar way of transferring >>> except the dummy >>> bits passing from the driver, try to see the fix on driver point of of >>> instead of digging >>> common sf stuff. >> >> Fixing on the driver part might be possible, might be not. Even though >> it is possible, I don't want to do that as the ICH manual explicitly >> says fast read command (0Bh) is not supported by the controller. As >> far as I can test, actually all of the commands which require an >> additional dummy byte after the address cycle fail to work. The >> matches what the manual says. >> >> Regards, >> Bin > > A gentle ping.
Will back soon, please give some time. thanks! -- Jagan. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
