On 18.01.2008 21:09, Ronald Hoogenboom wrote:
OK, I've checked it again and fixed a few things, see the read function and the erase also has the block protect disable, and it works again.
Thanks! It seems I was half asleep while coding the if (size > 512k) part.
It takes just under a minute to flash the whole chip, which is still quite acceptable, I would say. It took WAY longer when the byte write was timed by usleep instead of the myusec_delay.
Yes, speed was not the primary concern when developing the code, it was mostly about getting the code into a working state with maximum adherence to the datasheets.
Are there any more chips that need the block protect disable? Are these block protect bits always at the same position in the status register?
As far as I know, almost all chips have the block protect bits in the same place in the status register. I can verify that later with some of the data sheets on my disk.
Regards, Carl-Daniel