View Change

2 comments:

• File flashchips.c:

  • Patch Set #2, Line 10608: }, {

    My understanding here is that the newer MT25 series supports the 32K subsector erase, but the older […]

    We handle such differences with multiple chip definitions that share the ID. Flashrom
    supports that and would query the user to decide which chip it is. See for instance
    Macronix definitions (e.g. MX25L6405), they very often recycle IDs.

    So you would have to add two entries, one for "N25Q512..1E" and one for "MT25QU512".

  • Patch Set #2, Line 10616: .block_erase = spi_block_erase_c7,

    I'm new to this codebase so I don't know the best way to address this issue. Probably the safest thing to do short term is remove the bulk erase command altogether for the 512Mb device.

    I think the chip definitions should be as comprehensive as possible (within
    flashrom's code limits).

    In practice, I've found that erasing a sector at a time is only marginally slower than issuing a bulk erase. Thoughts?

    Actually, flashrom tries the list of erase functions from top to bottom anyway.
    It would only choose the bulk erase if the programmer situation doesn't allow
    any preceding function. The whole logic is not very smart and should change in
    the future. Hence, the chip definitions should be free from any assumptions.

    Also, to be clear, this bug affects the pre-existing N25Q512..3E in addition to the N25Q512..1E that I am adding.

    That should be addressed in a separate commit. Let me know if you want to do
    so, otherwise I'll take it.

To view, visit change 34413. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.