On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:08 AM, Stefan Tauner email@example.com wrote:
According to the line above and the respective ones later, you had all that hardware at hand and tested it successfully. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think that's the case ;)
Well, to tell the truth at first I made everything right here, but... I lost my work halfway. :c So then I gone into CODERRAGE and completelly forgot about it. FIXED now.
It should actually be 1695, 1950 instead. This is also an error in the existing definition of the GD25LQ32.
Well, I noticed that, but didn't undersand this as a bug. FIXED in GD25LQ32 and in new chips now.
Have you noticed any differences between the GD25LQ64 and its B revision?
No, I didn't. At least at the parts significant to the task. I read in flashchips.h, that rev. B is just faster and was ok with that. Rechecked everything now. Still see no anyhow significant difference.
-- Roman Titov