On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 20:40:44 -0700 David Hendricks dhendrix@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Stefan Tauner < stefan.tauner@student.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
did you really test the 1.8V version too?
Nope. We can set that to UNTESTED if you prefer, though I don't think there's much reason to suspect it will fail when the 3V version works.
Nope, but i don't trust any vendor too much. We have burned often enough (SFDP compatibility for example... ;)
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Stefan Tauner < stefan.tauner@student.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
.probe = probe_spi_rdid, .probe_timing = TIMING_ZERO,@@ -5450,9 +5454,44 @@ .unlock = spi_disable_blockprotect, .write = spi_chip_write_256, .read = spi_chip_read,
.voltage = {1700, 2000}, }, {.vendor = "Numonyx",/* ..3E = 3V, uniform 64KB/4KB blocks/sectors */.name = "N25Q064..3E",.bustype = BUS_SPI,.manufacture_id = ST_ID,.model_id = ST_N25Q064__3E,.total_size = 8192,.page_size = 256,/* supports SFDP */Does it work as expected (testable by removing the chip definition)?
Obviously not or I wouldn't have bothered to make a patch for it :-)
In case you ever get the chance to test this again, i would really like to see the SFDP debug output. The SFDP implementation is still not tested very much, so there still might be bugs, even if faulty chips are more likely imo.
Acked-by: Stefan Tauner stefan.tauner@student.tuwien.ac.at and committed in r1612, thanks!
-
Stefan Tauner