[PATCH] Added SST25WF080

This patch adds support for the SST25WF080 1 Mbyte SPI flash chip.  It  
has been very minimally tested (basically one each read/write/verify),  
on Windows XP with a USB Blaster as the programmer.  It worked,  
although it was horribly slow (at least 15 minutes to program 1 MB) -  
but I have not otherwise used this hardware/software combination to  
program anything, so that might be normal.
- Jason Harper

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

[Stefan Tauner]

On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 22:24:59 +0000
[e-mail] wrote:
> This patch adds support for the SST25WF080 1 Mbyte SPI flash chip.  It  
> has been very minimally tested (basically one each read/write/verify),  
> on Windows XP with a USB Blaster as the programmer.  It worked,  
> although it was horribly slow (at least 15 minutes to program 1 MB) -  
> but I have not otherwise used this hardware/software combination to  
> program anything, so that might be normal.
> Jason Harper

Hello Jason,

thanks for the patch. It looks good apart from the .tested field which
should be set to TEST_OK_PREW and I'd like to commit it. For that we
need a proper declaration of authorship though. Please see
http://www.coreboot.org/Development_Guidelines#Sign-off_Procedure

Performance was always an issue with the Bus Pirate (especially with
SST chips that required 1-byte writes), but I thought the FT2232-based
programmers to be faster. If flashrom didn't complain about failing
erases or something similar it is probably normal.

Quoting Stefan Tauner :
> Hello Jason,
>
> thanks for the patch. It looks good apart from the .tested field which
> should be set to TEST_OK_PREW and I'd like to commit it. For that we
> need a proper declaration of authorship though. Please see
> http://www.coreboot.org/Development_Guidelines#Sign-off_Procedure

Ok, my previous patch is hereby...
Signed-off-by: Jason Harper

I didn't feel comfortable setting the .tested field, given the  
extremely brief nature of my testing, and the fact that I just copied  
an existing SST device that was itself untested.  Nothing I did would  
have verified that the smaller erase block sizes were correct, for  
example.

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

[Stefan Tauner]

On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 14:33:31 +0000
[e-mail] wrote:
> Quoting Stefan Tauner :
> > Hello Jason,
> >
> > thanks for the patch. It looks good apart from the .tested field which
> > should be set to TEST_OK_PREW and I'd like to commit it. For that we
> > need a proper declaration of authorship though. Please see
> > http://www.coreboot.org/Development_Guidelines#Sign-off_Procedure
>
> Ok, my previous patch is hereby...
> Signed-off-by: Jason Harper

Acked-by: Stefan Tauner 
and committed in r1785.
Additionally, I have refined status register prettyprinting and
unlocking of the whole family.
> I didn't feel comfortable setting the .tested field, given the  
> extremely brief nature of my testing, and the fact that I just copied  
> an existing SST device that was itself untested.  Nothing I did would  
> have verified that the smaller erase block sizes were correct, for  
> example.

Good enough, or at least equivalent to the flag's semantics ;)
BTW flashrom uses the smallest (first) erase block size... so you have
just tested the 4k eraser and not the *bigger* ones.