Hi Bin,
On 22 April 2015 at 12:14, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Jagan,
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 8:47 PM, Jagan Teki <jagannadh.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Bin,
>>
>> On 20 April 2015 at 15:02, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Jagan,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Jagan Teki <jagannadh.t...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi Bin,
>>>>
>>>> On 17 April 2015 at 07:14, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Jagan,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:09 AM, Jagan Teki <jagannadh.t...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Bin,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you have a different interpretation of sector size here-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /* The size listed here is what works with SPINOR_OP_SE, which isn't
>>>>>> * necessarily called a "sector" by the vendor.
>>>>>> */
>>>>>> Say for example SST25VF040B has 8 sectors of which each sector size is
>>>>>> 64 * 1024 out of this we can use 4K sector erase or 32K sector erase or
>>>>>> 64K sector erase through flags.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Linux does follow the same-
>>>>>> /* SST -- large erase sizes are "overlays", "sectors" are 4K */
>>>>>> { "sst25vf040b", INFO(0xbf258d, 0, 64 * 1024, 8, SECT_4K |
>>>>>> SST_WRITE) },
>>>>>> { "sst25vf080b", INFO(0xbf258e, 0, 64 * 1024, 16, SECT_4K |
>>>>>> SST_WRITE) },
>>>>>> { "sst25vf016b", INFO(0xbf2541, 0, 64 * 1024, 32, SECT_4K |
>>>>>> SST_WRITE) },
>>>>>> { "sst25vf032b", INFO(0xbf254a, 0, 64 * 1024, 64, SECT_4K |
>>>>>> SST_WRITE) },
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please check it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I know this pretty well. And I want to change this behavior, as
>>>>> my cover letter says.
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently the 'sf erase' command operates on a 64KB granularity, while
>>>>> the actual erase command is 4KB granularity, which is inconsistent and
>>>>> causes confusion.
>>>>
>>>> It never related to 'sf erase' instead based on the 'params->flags'
>>>> sf_probe will decide which erase_cmd with erase_size will use.
>>>
>>> No, it is related. See cmd_sf.c:
>>
>> I'm not getting your point- how could it erase use 64K sector size
>> instead of 4K.
>
> It indeed erases 64K sector size. You need check the logic in
> spi_flash_validate_params().
We're assigning erase_size to sector_size only when SECT_4K and SECT_32K
and for these erase_size becomes direct values, please check this.
/* Compute erase sector and command */
if (params->flags & SECT_4K) {
flash->erase_cmd = CMD_ERASE_4K;
flash->erase_size = 4096;
} else if (params->flags & SECT_32K) {
flash->erase_cmd = CMD_ERASE_32K;
flash->erase_size = 32768;
} else {
flash->erase_cmd = CMD_ERASE_64K;
flash->erase_size = flash->sector_size;
}
>
>> Suppose the sector size is 4K
>>
>> flash->sector_size = 0x1000
>> 1. erase 4K len flash (it's total erase length)
>>
>> # sf erase 0x0 0x1000
>>
>> len_arg = simple_strtoul(arg, &ep, 16);
>> gives - 0x1000
>>
>> *len becomes 0x1000
>>
>> 2. erase 4K+1 len flash
>>
>> # sf erase 0x0 +0x1001
>>
>> len_arg = simple_strtoul(arg, &ep, 16);
>> gives - 0x1001
>>
>> *len becomes 0x2000
>>
>> All the way when it goes to sf_ops.c erase will take by means of
>> erase_size which is assigned in sf_probe.c based on flags like 4K
>> 32K or 64K.
thanks!
--
Jagan.
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
