On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 05:57:00PM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote: > Hi Philippe, > > unfortunately your patch base64 encoded. :-(
Are you sure ? It isn't so in my `sent' folder. > > Even though git seems to be able to handle this, your commit text still has > some problems. Please see below: > > On Tuesday 17 August 2010 11:49:24 Philippe De Muyter wrote: > > I have "ported" U-boot to a in house made board with Numonyx Axcell P33/P30 > > 256-Mbit 65nm flash chips. > > > > After some time :( searching for bugs in our board or soft, we have > > discovered that those chips have a small but annoying bug, documented in > > "Numonyx Axcell P33/P30 256-Mbit Specification Update" > > > > It states : > > When customer uses [...] block unlock, the block lock status might be > > altered inadvertently. Lock status might be set to either 01h or 03h > > unexpectedly (00h as expected data), which leads to program/erase failure > > on certain blocks. > > > > A working workaround is given, which I have applied and tested with success > > : > > > > Workaround: If the interval between 60h and its subsequent command > > can be guaranteed within 20μs, Option I is recommended, > > otherwise Option II (involves hardware) should be selected. > > Option I: The table below lists the detail command sequences: > > Command > > Data bus Address bus Remarks > > Sequence > > 1 90h Block Address > > Read Lock Status > > 2 Read Block Address + 02h > > (2)(3) (1) > > 3 60h Block Address > > (2)(3) (1) Lock/Unlock/RCR > > Configuration 4 D0h/01h/03h Block Address > > Notes: > > (1) Block Address refers to RCR configuration data only when the 60h > > command sequence is used to set RCR register combined with 03h > > subsequent command. > > (2) For the third and fourth command sequences, the Block Address must > > be the same. > > (3) The interval between 60h command and its subsequent D0h/01h/2Fh/03h > > commands should be less than 20μs. > > > > And here is a log comparison of a simple (destructive) flash test without > > and with the workaround. > > > > diff -U 50 without-numonyx-workaround.log with-numonyx-workaround.log > > -U-Boot 2010.06-00696-g22b002c-dirty (Aug 16 2010 - 15:07:47) > > +U-Boot 2010.06-00696-g22b002c-dirty (Aug 16 2010 - 15:25:19) > > You still have this "diff" stuff in the commit text. This results in the > remaining stuff being dropped by git after applying. Please remove those diff > lines. Sorry about that; I had tested with `patch', but of course it does not need the commit text part :( > And please don't send base64 encoded mails. I strongly suggest using > "git send-email". My experience with `git send-email' is not that good (none of the mails I sent this way were answered), but I'll try again. Thanks Philippe -- Philippe De Muyter phdm at macqel dot be Tel +32 27029044 Macq Electronique SA rue de l'Aeronef 2 B-1140 Bruxelles Fax +32 27029077 _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
