[PATCH] Fix EN29F002(A)(N) eraseblock tables (B and T transposed)

[TJ]

Based on reading the datasheet the eraseblocks for B and T variations
look to have been accidentally transposed.

http://www.datasheetcatalog.org/datasheet/EonSiliconSolution/mXssvqt.pdf
---
 flashchips.c |   12 ++++++------
 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/flashchips.c b/flashchips.c
index 2953dd6..b5be180 100644
--- a/flashchips.c
+++ b/flashchips.c
@@ -2244,10 +2244,10 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = {
    	{
    		{
    			.eraseblocks = { 
-					{64 * 1024, 3},
-					{32 * 1024, 1},
-					{8 * 1024, 2},
    				{16 * 1024, 1},
+					{8 * 1024, 2},
+					{32 * 1024, 1},
+					{64 * 1024, 3},
    			},
    			.block_erase = erase_sector_jedec,
    		}, {
@@ -2276,10 +2276,10 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = {
    	{
    		{
    			.eraseblocks = { 
-					{16 * 1024, 1},
-					{8 * 1024, 2},
-					{32 * 1024, 1},
    				{64 * 1024, 3},
+					{32 * 1024, 1},
+					{8 * 1024, 2},
+					{16 * 1024, 1},
    			},
    			.block_erase = erase_sector_jedec,
    		}, {

[PATCH] Fix EN29F002(A)(N) eraseblock tables (B and T transposed)

[Sean Nelson]

On 2/5/10 3:47 PM, TJ wrote:
> Based on reading the datasheet the eraseblocks for B and T variations
> look to have been accidentally transposed.
> http://www.datasheetcatalog.org/datasheet/EonSiliconSolution/mXssvqt.pdf
>
> flashchips.c |   12 ++++++------
>   1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/flashchips.c b/flashchips.c
> index 2953dd6..b5be180 100644
> --- a/flashchips.c
> +++ b/flashchips.c
> @@ -2244,10 +2244,10 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = {
>    	{
>    		{
>    			.eraseblocks = {
> 			{64 * 1024, 3},
> 			{32 * 1024, 1},
> 			{8 * 1024, 2},
> 		{16 * 1024, 1},
> 			{8 * 1024, 2},
> 			{32 * 1024, 1},
> 			{64 * 1024, 3},
> 	},
> 	.block_erase = erase_sector_jedec,
> }, {
>
> @@ -2276,10 +2276,10 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = {
>    	{
>    		{
>    			.eraseblocks = {
> 			{16 * 1024, 1},
> 			{8 * 1024, 2},
> 			{32 * 1024, 1},
> 		{64 * 1024, 3},
> 			{32 * 1024, 1},
> 			{8 * 1024, 2},
> 			{16 * 1024, 1},
> 	},
> 	.block_erase = erase_sector_jedec,
> }, {

You forgot to add a signoff!

[PATCH] Fix EN29F002(A)(N) eraseblock tables (B and T transposed)

[TJ]

On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 19:00 -0800, Sean Nelson wrote:
> You forgot to add a signoff!

Actually no, I deliberately left it off because as my first few patch
contributions I didn't want them accepted immediately in case I made
some silly mistakes or misunderstandings.

If you're happy that I've read the situation correctly and the tables
are transposed I'll resubmit it signed.

[PATCH] Fix EN29F002(A)(N) eraseblock tables (B and T transposed)

[Sean Nelson]

On 2/5/10 8:08 PM, TJ wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 19:00 -0800, Sean Nelson wrote:
> > You forgot to add a signoff!
>
> Actually no, I deliberately left it off because as my first few patch
> contributions I didn't want them accepted immediately in case I made
> some silly mistakes or misunderstandings.
>
> If you're happy that I've read the situation correctly and the tables
> are transposed I'll resubmit it signed.
>
> flashrom mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom

You are correct on the transpostion. If you submit a patch, just add 
your signoff so you're not resubmitting the same patch; if it's correct 
in the first place then someone can Ack it and commit.

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

On 06.02.2010 00:47, TJ wrote:
> Based on reading the datasheet the eraseblocks for B and T variations
> look to have been accidentally transposed.
>
> http://www.datasheetcatalog.org/datasheet/EonSiliconSolution/mXssvqt.pdf

Thanks, this was committed in r934.
I didn't see any followup with a signoff, and our patch tracking page
doesn't show one either. That caused the patch not to show up on the
to-be-reviewed list, and might have been the reason why r934 does solve
the problem with an identical but independently developed patch.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel