View Change

3 comments:

• Commit Message:

  • Patch Set #2, Line 14:

    the later means I
    have tested 4-byte addressing
    

    Only if you verified the result with another programmer... […]

    Agree, and its why I was fairly fastidious in documenting exactly what I did test.

    You want me to add something like "but only enough to show the chip doesn't report errors when we try to use 4 byte addressing" to the commit message?

    More importantly, do you think the test OK flags I used are acceptable with this level of testing?

• File flashchips.c:

  • Patch Set #2, Line 8572: 512B

    datasheet says 8kb (4kb factory, 4kb customer)

    8kbit isn't it? Or are bit units implicit?

    MX25U12835F has 4kbit OTP and is commented as 512B. Is that a mistake or does the B imply bytes?

    Changing to this is OK?

      /* OTP: 512B factory programmed and 512B customer programmed; enter 0xB1, exit 0xC1 */

    Wow... this comment has a lot of question marks in it!

  • Patch Set #2, Line 8579:

    			{
    				.eraseblocks = { {4 * 1024, 16384} },
    				.block_erase = spi_block_erase_20,
    			}, {
    				.eraseblocks = { {32 * 1024, 2048} },
    				.block_erase = spi_block_erase_52,
    			}, {
    				.eraseblocks = { {64 * 1024, 1024} },
    				.block_erase = spi_block_erase_d8,
    			}
    

    Please list the native 4BA versions too: 21 5c dc

    Will fix.

To view, visit change 26949. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.