On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:26:22 +0300 Kyösti Mälkki kyosti.malkki@gmail.com wrote:
W39F010 is 128kB parallel 5V flash chip, 16k bootblocks. W39L010 is 128kB parallel 3V flash chip, 8k bootblocks. W39L020 is 256kB parallel 3V flash chip, 64k/16k bootblocks.
Considering the test of W39F010, on the platform [1] the first write attempt after erase returned with verify failure. Second write attempt and following read-verify was succesful.
[1] "Silicon Image SiI 3124 PCI-X SATA Ctrl" (1095:3124, BDF 07:04.0).
Signed-off-by: Kyösti Mälkki kyosti.malkki@gmail.com
Thanks for the patch!
Acked-by: Stefan Tauner stefan.tauner@student.tuwien.ac.at and committed in r1620.
index da61d23..d6504ff 100644 --- a/w39.c +++ b/w39.c @@ -115,6 +115,26 @@ static int printlock_w39_tblwp(uint8_t lock) return 0; }
+static int printlock_w39_bootblock_8k(uint8_t lock) +{
- msg_cdbg("Software 8 kB bootblock locking is %sactive.\n",
(lock & 0x03) ? "" : "not ");- if (lock & 0x03)
return -1;- return 0;
+}
+static int printlock_w39_bootblock_16k(uint8_t lock) +{
- msg_cdbg("Software 16 kB bootblock locking is %sactive.\n",
(lock & 0x03) ? "" : "not ");- if (lock & 0x03)
return -1;- return 0;
+}
these functions were a bit too obviously redundant. i have combined them by using an additional parameter to indicate the block size.