On Saturday, August 28, 2010 18:15:43 Reinhard Meyer wrote: > Dear Mike Frysinger, > > On Thursday, August 26, 2010 16:00:50 Reinhard Meyer wrote: > > interesting, but what if we push it further. something like this > > (untested): > > That code does not address the following issues to complete extend: > > 1. JEDEC conformant that have ID in first byte > 2. JEDEC conformant that have ID in later byte
why doesnt it ? look at the structure i created a bit closer as well as the
code that parses it.
> The question that remains is if any ID can be assigned twice in different
> positions and them meaning different manufacturers?
>
> 7f 7f 7f 7f 7f 7f c2 = ramtron
{ 6, 0xc2, ramtron_probe, },
> 7f 7f 7f c2 = some other manufacturer?
{ 3, 0xc2, some_other_manu_probe, },
> 3. non JEDEC conformant or those that do not honor the read-id command
> and thus present 0xff _if_ the MISO line is pulled up
that isnt really changed at all by my patch. there is a simple idcode[0] ==
0xff branch for people to call probe functions which are prepared to handle
non-jedec compatible probes.
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
