Re: [flashrom] Macronix MX25L6445E

[Wagner, Helge (GE Germany)]

Hi all,

did I miss your answer or didn't you write one yet?

Regards,
Helge

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail]
[mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Wagner, Helge (GE
Germany)
Sent: Dienstag, 19. Juli 2011 10:57
To: Stefan Reinauer; Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [flashrom] Macronix MX25L6445E

Stefan,

Did you use my latest patch (at
http://www.flashrom.org/pipermail/flashrom/2011-June/007013.html )?

Carl-Daniel,
> > > To be sure that the spi_block_erase_20 works for both the MX25L6405
> > > and the MX25L6445E, we could change the block erase size from 64K 
> > > to 4K. This should work even for the MX25L6405, but with the side 
> > > effect of the erase taking longer than needed.

This was the comment for my first try.
> Sorry, but AFAICS this will cause chip corruption. To be exact, 
> specifying a too small eraseblock size (4 kB instead of 64 kB) means 
> that flashrom will walk the device in 4 kB blocks, erase each block 
> and write to it. Now if the actual erase block size is bigger than the
> specified block size, you'll get this:

And exactly because of that I have reworked the patch (see above).

Regards,
Helge

-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Reinauer [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Montag, 18. Juli 2011 23:49
To: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
Cc: Wagner, Helge (GE Germany); [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [flashrom] Macronix MX25L6445E

* Carl-Daniel Hailfinger  [110718
23:44]:
> Am 18.07.2011 19:07 schrieb Stefan Reinauer:
> > Wagner, Helge (GE Intelligent Platforms)

[110527 15:46]:
> > > To be sure that the spi_block_erase_20 works for both the MX25L6405
> > > and the MX25L6445E, we could change the block erase size from 64K 
> > > to 4K. This should work even for the MX25L6405, but with the side 
> > > effect of the erase taking longer than needed.
> > >
> > > Any comments?
> >
> > works great for me!
> > > Please find my patches included.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Helge Wagner
> >
> > Acked-by: Stefan Reinauer
>
> Sorry, but AFAICS this will cause chip corruption. To be exact, 
> specifying a too small eraseblock size (4 kB instead of 64 kB) means 
> that flashrom will walk the device in 4 kB blocks, erase each block 
> and write to it. Now if the actual erase block size is bigger than the
> specified block size, you'll get this:

Yes, I agree that changing the block erase size is risky. Good thing the
patch does not change it, so it should be save to apply, plus it solves
the problem.

Stefan

_______________________________________________
flashrom mailing list
[e-mail]
http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom