[PATCH] Support for PCM Pm39LV020 and Pm39LV040

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

flashrom -V for M3A78-CM

[commit] r988 - trunk

Anders Juel Jensen

16 Jan 2010 16 Jan '10

3:38 a.m.

According to the data sheet these are identical to the 39LV010 in every respect except capacity.

Unfortunately I can't test this, as I am on a laptop. Flashrom simply doesn't detect the chip.

Signed-of-by: Anders Juel Jensen andersjjensen@gmail.com

Attachments:

Pm39LV020-and-040.diff (text/x-patch — 1.1 KB)

Show replies by date

Sean Nelson

17 Jan 17 Jan

5:53 a.m.

Could you please redo patch to use block_erasers?

Anders Juel Jensen

10:46 a.m.

On Sunday 17 January 2010 05:53:00 Sean Nelson wrote:

...

Could you please redo patch to use block_erasers?

I don't have enough overview of all this to figure this out yet. I will read some more code and see what I can come up with.

Can you point me to a reasonably similar chip that already uses block erasers so I can use that as a template?

/Anders

Anders Juel Jensen

20 Jan 20 Jan

5:49 p.m.

update to block_erasers

Signed-off-by Anders Juel Jensen -- On Sunday 17 January 2010 05:53:00 Sean Nelson wrote:

...

Could you please redo patch to use block_erasers?

if this is done right i will add the 512 version too /Anders

Carl-Daniel Hailfinger

6:24 p.m.

On 20.01.2010 17:49, Anders Juel Jensen wrote:

...

update to block_erasers

Signed-off-by Anders Juel Jensen

Your original Signed-off-by: statement (with : and mail address) had the format we want. No need to worry, someone will fix up on commit.

...

On Sunday 17 January 2010 05:53:00 Sean Nelson wrote:

...
Could you please redo patch to use block_erasers?

if this is done right i will add the 512 version too

That would be nice.

...

Index: flashchips.c

--- flashchips.c (revision 876) +++ flashchips.c (working copy) @@ -3372,6 +3372,64 @@

{ .vendor = "PMC",
.name		= "Pm39LV020",
.bustype	= CHIP_BUSTYPE_PARALLEL,
.manufacture_id	= PMC_ID_NOPREFIX,
.model_id	= PMC_39F020,
.total_size	= 256,
.page_size	= 4096,
.tested		= TEST_UNTESTED,
.probe		= probe_jedec,

Ahem. While you're correct that the command sequence is JEDEC, it seems the PMC chips use a reduced address scheme of 0x555 and 0x2aa, so probe_jedec is not really correct. Same problem for the erase functions. Before you redo the patch, let us merge Sean's last eraseblock patch, and then finish the infrastructure for reduced addresses. That way, your patch only has to set .feature_bits and can keep the reast as it was in this submission.

...

.probe_timing	= TIMING_ZERO,	/* Datasheet has no timing info specified */

```
.erase		= NULL,
```
```
.block_erasers =
```
```
{
```
```
	{
```
```
		.eraseblocks = { {4 * 1024, 64} },
```
```
		.block_erase = erase_sector_jedec,
```
```
	}, {
```
```
		.eraseblocks = { {64 * 1024, 4} },
```
```
		.block_erase = erase_block_jedec,
```
```
	}, {
```
```
		.eraseblocks = { {256 * 1024, 1} },
```

		.block_erase = erase_chip_block_jedec,

Looks good.

...

```
	}
```
```
},
```
```
.write		= write_49f002,
```
```
.read		= read_memmapped,
```
},
{
```
.vendor		= "PMC",
```
```
.name		= "Pm39LV040",
```
```
.bustype	= CHIP_BUSTYPE_PARALLEL,
```
```
.manufacture_id	= PMC_ID_NOPREFIX,
```
```
.model_id	= PMC_39F040,
```
```
.total_size	= 512,
```
```
.page_size	= 4096,
```
```
.tested		= TEST_UNTESTED,
```
```
.probe		= probe_jedec,
```

.probe_timing	= TIMING_ZERO,	/* Datasheet has no timing info specified */

```
.erase		= NULL,
```
```
.block_erasers =
```
```
{
```
```
	{
```
```
		.eraseblocks = { {4 * 1024, 128} },
```
```
		.block_erase = erase_sector_jedec,
```
```
	}, {
```
```
		.eraseblocks = { {64 * 1024, 8} },
```
```
		.block_erase = erase_block_jedec,
```
```
	}, {
```
```
		.eraseblocks = { {512 * 1024, 1} },
```

		.block_erase = erase_chip_block_jedec,

Looks good as well.

...

	}
},
.write		= write_49f002,
.read		= read_memmapped,
},

{
.vendor		= "PMC",
.name = "Pm49FL002", .bustype = CHIP_BUSTYPE_LPC|CHIP_BUSTYPE_FWH, /* A/A Mux*/ .manufacture_id = PMC_ID_NOPREFIX,

Regards, Carl-Daniel

-- Developer quote of the year: "We are juggling too many chainsaws and flaming arrows and tigers."

Carl-Daniel Hailfinger

4 Feb 4 Feb

1:21 a.m.

Hi Anders,

could you please resubmit your patch? AFAICS all required infrastructure should be in place now.

Regards, Carl-Daniel

-- Developer quote of the year: "We are juggling too many chainsaws and flaming arrows and tigers."

Carl-Daniel Hailfinger

28 Mar 28 Mar

12:25 a.m.

Hi Anders,

you wrote that you planned to do the Pm39LV512 as well. It would be cool if you could send a patch for that, and also for the Pm39F* family.

On 20.01.2010 18:24, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:

...

On 20.01.2010 17:49, Anders Juel Jensen wrote:

...
if this is done right i will add the 512 version too

That would be nice.

...
Index: flashchips.c

--- flashchips.c (revision 876) +++ flashchips.c (working copy) @@ -3372,6 +3372,64 @@

{ .vendor = "PMC",
.name		= "Pm39LV020",
.bustype	= CHIP_BUSTYPE_PARALLEL,
.manufacture_id	= PMC_ID_NOPREFIX,
.model_id	= PMC_39F020,

This ID was incorrect. Pm39LV020 and Pm39F020 have different IDs. I fixed it for the commit.

...

...
.total_size	= 256,
.page_size	= 4096,
.tested		= TEST_UNTESTED,
.probe		= probe_jedec,
Ahem. While you're correct that the command sequence is JEDEC, it seems the PMC chips use a reduced address scheme of 0x555 and 0x2aa, so probe_jedec is not really correct. Same problem for the erase functions. Before you redo the patch, let us merge Sean's last eraseblock patch, and then finish the infrastructure for reduced addresses. That way, your patch only has to set .feature_bits and can keep the reast as it was in this submission.

I fixed it for the commit.

...

.probe_timing	= TIMING_ZERO,	/* Datasheet has no timing info specified */

```
.erase		= NULL,
```
```
.block_erasers =
```
```
{
```
```
	{
```
```
		.eraseblocks = { {4 * 1024, 64} },
```
```
		.block_erase = erase_sector_jedec,
```
```
	}, {
```
```
		.eraseblocks = { {64 * 1024, 4} },
```
```
		.block_erase = erase_block_jedec,
```
```
	}, {
```
```
		.eraseblocks = { {256 * 1024, 1} },
```

		.block_erase = erase_chip_block_jedec,

Looks good.

...

```
	}
```
```
},
```
```
.write		= write_49f002,
```
```
.read		= read_memmapped,
```
},
{
```
.vendor		= "PMC",
```
```
.name		= "Pm39LV040",
```
```
.bustype	= CHIP_BUSTYPE_PARALLEL,
```
```
.manufacture_id	= PMC_ID_NOPREFIX,
```
```
.model_id	= PMC_39F040,
```

Wrong ID again. Fixed for the commit.

...

```
.total_size	= 512,
```
```
.page_size	= 4096,
```
```
.tested		= TEST_UNTESTED,
```
```
.probe		= probe_jedec,
```

.probe_timing	= TIMING_ZERO,	/* Datasheet has no timing info specified */

```
.erase		= NULL,
```
```
.block_erasers =
```
```
{
```
```
	{
```
```
		.eraseblocks = { {4 * 1024, 128} },
```
```
		.block_erase = erase_sector_jedec,
```
```
	}, {
```
```
		.eraseblocks = { {64 * 1024, 8} },
```
```
		.block_erase = erase_block_jedec,
```
```
	}, {
```
```
		.eraseblocks = { {512 * 1024, 1} },
```

		.block_erase = erase_chip_block_jedec,

Looks good as well.

...

	}
},
.write		= write_49f002,
.read		= read_memmapped,
},

{
.vendor		= "PMC",
.name = "Pm49FL002", .bustype = CHIP_BUSTYPE_LPC|CHIP_BUSTYPE_FWH, /* A/A Mux*/ .manufacture_id = PMC_ID_NOPREFIX,

Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net

Committed in r988 with the changes outlined above.

Regards, Carl-Daniel

-- http://www.hailfinger.org/

5142

days inactive

5212

days old

flashrom@flashrom.org

6 comments

3 participants

tags (0)

participants (3)

Anders Juel Jensen
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
Sean Nelson