Apart from the JEDEC ID (621614) the difference from the SST25WF080 is that it lacks op codes 0xAD (AAI Word program) and 0x52 (32K erase).
Tested under Linux with spidev.
Signed-off-by: Ben Gardner bgardner@wabtec.com --- flashchips.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ flashchips.h | 3 ++- 2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/flashchips.c b/flashchips.c index 8b5d1ec..b71bd2c 100644 --- a/flashchips.c +++ b/flashchips.c @@ -11803,6 +11803,41 @@ const struct flashchip flashchips[] = {
{ .vendor = "SST", + .name = "SST25WF080B", + .bustype = BUS_SPI, + .manufacture_id = SST_ID_62, + .model_id = SST_SST25WF080B, + .total_size = 1024, + .page_size = 256, + .feature_bits = FEATURE_WRSR_EITHER, + .tested = TEST_OK_PREW, + .probe = probe_spi_rdid, + .probe_timing = TIMING_ZERO, + .block_erasers = + { + { + .eraseblocks = { {4 * 1024, 256} }, + .block_erase = spi_block_erase_20, + }, { + .eraseblocks = { {64 * 1024, 16} }, + .block_erase = spi_block_erase_d8, + }, { + .eraseblocks = { {1024 * 1024, 1} }, + .block_erase = spi_block_erase_60, + }, { + .eraseblocks = { {1024 * 1024, 1} }, + .block_erase = spi_block_erase_c7, + }, + }, + .printlock = spi_prettyprint_status_register_sst25, /* *does* have a BP3 but it is useless */ + .unlock = spi_disable_blockprotect_bp3_srwd, + .write = spi_chip_write_256, + .read = spi_chip_read, /* Fast read (0x0B) supported */ + .voltage = {1650, 1950}, + }, + + { + .vendor = "SST", .name = "SST28SF040A", .bustype = BUS_PARALLEL, .manufacture_id = SST_ID, diff --git a/flashchips.h b/flashchips.h index 07ae49d..d6b2b8d 100644 --- a/flashchips.h +++ b/flashchips.h @@ -659,6 +659,7 @@ * byte of device ID is related to log(bitsize) at least for some chips. */ #define SST_ID 0xBF /* SST */ +#define SST_ID_62 0x62 /* SST */ #define SST_SST25LF020_REMS 0x43 /* REMS or RES opcode */ #define SST_SST25WF512 0x2501 #define SST_SST25WF010 0x2502 @@ -669,7 +670,7 @@ * IDs and were not spotted in the wild yet. Their datasheets show a 4 byte long response w/o a vendor ID. */ #define SST_SST25WF020A /* 0x62 0x16 0x12 0x00 */ #define SST_SST25WF040B /* 0x62 0x16 0x13 0x00 */ -#define SST_SST25WF080B /* 0x62 0x16 0x14 0x00 */ +#define SST_SST25WF080B 0x1614 /* 0x62 0x16 0x14 0x00 */ #define SST_SST25VF512_REMS 0x48 /* REMS or RES opcode, same as SST25VF512A */ #define SST_SST25VF010_REMS 0x49 /* REMS or RES opcode, same as SST25VF010A */ #define SST_SST25VF020_REMS 0x43 /* REMS or RES opcode, same as SST25LF020A */ -- 1.9.1
This email and any attachments are only for use by the intended recipient(s) and may contain legally privileged, confidential, proprietary or otherwise private information. Any unauthorized use, reproduction, dissemination, distribution or other disclosure of the contents of this e-mail or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Neither this information block, the typed name of the sender, nor anything else in this message is intended to constitute an electronic signature unless a specific statement to the contrary is included in this message.
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:27:15 -0500 Ben Gardner bgardner@wabtec.com wrote:
Apart from the JEDEC ID (621614) the difference from the SST25WF080 is that it lacks op codes 0xAD (AAI Word program) and 0x52 (32K erase).
Tested under Linux with spidev.
Signed-off-by: Ben Gardner bgardner@wabtec.com
flashchips.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ flashchips.h | 3 ++- 2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/flashchips.c b/flashchips.c index 8b5d1ec..b71bd2c 100644 --- a/flashchips.c +++ b/flashchips.c @@ -11803,6 +11803,41 @@ const struct flashchip flashchips[] = {
{ .vendor = "SST",
.name = "SST25WF080B",.bustype = BUS_SPI,.manufacture_id = SST_ID_62,.model_id = SST_SST25WF080B,.total_size = 1024,.page_size = 256,.feature_bits = FEATURE_WRSR_EITHER,.tested = TEST_OK_PREW,.probe = probe_spi_rdid,.probe_timing = TIMING_ZERO,.block_erasers ={{.eraseblocks = { {4 * 1024, 256} },.block_erase = spi_block_erase_20,}, {.eraseblocks = { {64 * 1024, 16} },.block_erase = spi_block_erase_d8,}, {.eraseblocks = { {1024 * 1024, 1} },.block_erase = spi_block_erase_60,}, {.eraseblocks = { {1024 * 1024, 1} },.block_erase = spi_block_erase_c7,},},.printlock = spi_prettyprint_status_register_sst25, /* *does* have a BP3 but it is useless */.unlock = spi_disable_blockprotect_bp3_srwd,.write = spi_chip_write_256,.read = spi_chip_read, /* Fast read (0x0B) supported */.voltage = {1650, 1950},},{.vendor = "SST", .name = "SST28SF040A", .bustype = BUS_PARALLEL, .manufacture_id = SST_ID,diff --git a/flashchips.h b/flashchips.h index 07ae49d..d6b2b8d 100644 --- a/flashchips.h +++ b/flashchips.h @@ -659,6 +659,7 @@
- byte of device ID is related to log(bitsize) at least for some chips.
*/ #define SST_ID 0xBF /* SST */ +#define SST_ID_62 0x62 /* SST */ #define SST_SST25LF020_REMS 0x43 /* REMS or RES opcode */ #define SST_SST25WF512 0x2501 #define SST_SST25WF010 0x2502 @@ -669,7 +670,7 @@
- IDs and were not spotted in the wild yet. Their datasheets show a 4 byte long response w/o a vendor ID. */
#define SST_SST25WF020A /* 0x62 0x16 0x12 0x00 */ #define SST_SST25WF040B /* 0x62 0x16 0x13 0x00 */ -#define SST_SST25WF080B /* 0x62 0x16 0x14 0x00 */ +#define SST_SST25WF080B 0x1614 /* 0x62 0x16 0x14 0x00 */ #define SST_SST25VF512_REMS 0x48 /* REMS or RES opcode, same as SST25VF512A */ #define SST_SST25VF010_REMS 0x49 /* REMS or RES opcode, same as SST25VF010A */ #define SST_SST25VF020_REMS 0x43 /* REMS or RES opcode, same as SST25LF020A */
Hi Ben,
thanks for your patch. It had a lot of wrong white space (spaces instead of tabs) and you missed a few things: - That first ID byte is actually Sanyo's. One can find some news articles on a cooperation between those on flash memory and other stuff in about 2003+. So my guess is that those chips were the outcome of that cooperation. - The comment in flashchip.h stating that these chips were not seen in the wild is no longer valid apparently. :) - The status register does not contain a BP2 bit but a top/bottom bit. - There is no EWSR instruction so it has to use FEATURE_WRSR_WREN.
But the main part seems fine!
I have fixed those errors and added an appropriate status register pretty print function. While at it, I have also added the SST25WF020A and SST25WF040B as well.
The patch was additionally Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner stefan.tauner@alumni.tuwien.ac.at and Acked-by: Stefan Tauner stefan.tauner@alumni.tuwien.ac.at and commited in r1901. Thanks!
Thanks! I appreciate your attention to details. I had stopped digging into the code once I got it to do what I needed. =)
On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Stefan Tauner stefan.tauner@alumni.tuwien.ac.at wrote:
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:27:15 -0500 Ben Gardner bgardner@wabtec.com wrote:
Apart from the JEDEC ID (621614) the difference from the SST25WF080 is that it lacks op codes 0xAD (AAI Word program) and 0x52 (32K erase).
Tested under Linux with spidev.
Signed-off-by: Ben Gardner bgardner@wabtec.com
flashchips.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ flashchips.h | 3 ++- 2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/flashchips.c b/flashchips.c index 8b5d1ec..b71bd2c 100644 --- a/flashchips.c +++ b/flashchips.c @@ -11803,6 +11803,41 @@ const struct flashchip flashchips[] = {
{ .vendor = "SST",
.name = "SST25WF080B",.bustype = BUS_SPI,.manufacture_id = SST_ID_62,.model_id = SST_SST25WF080B,.total_size = 1024,.page_size = 256,.feature_bits = FEATURE_WRSR_EITHER,.tested = TEST_OK_PREW,.probe = probe_spi_rdid,.probe_timing = TIMING_ZERO,.block_erasers ={{.eraseblocks = { {4 * 1024, 256} },.block_erase = spi_block_erase_20,}, {.eraseblocks = { {64 * 1024, 16} },.block_erase = spi_block_erase_d8,}, {.eraseblocks = { {1024 * 1024, 1} },.block_erase = spi_block_erase_60,}, {.eraseblocks = { {1024 * 1024, 1} },.block_erase = spi_block_erase_c7,},},.printlock = spi_prettyprint_status_register_sst25, /* *does* have a BP3 but it is useless */.unlock = spi_disable_blockprotect_bp3_srwd,.write = spi_chip_write_256,.read = spi_chip_read, /* Fast read (0x0B) supported */.voltage = {1650, 1950},},{.vendor = "SST", .name = "SST28SF040A", .bustype = BUS_PARALLEL, .manufacture_id = SST_ID,diff --git a/flashchips.h b/flashchips.h index 07ae49d..d6b2b8d 100644 --- a/flashchips.h +++ b/flashchips.h @@ -659,6 +659,7 @@
- byte of device ID is related to log(bitsize) at least for some chips.
*/ #define SST_ID 0xBF /* SST */ +#define SST_ID_62 0x62 /* SST */ #define SST_SST25LF020_REMS 0x43 /* REMS or RES opcode */ #define SST_SST25WF512 0x2501 #define SST_SST25WF010 0x2502 @@ -669,7 +670,7 @@
- IDs and were not spotted in the wild yet. Their datasheets show a 4 byte long response w/o a vendor ID. */
#define SST_SST25WF020A /* 0x62 0x16 0x12 0x00 */ #define SST_SST25WF040B /* 0x62 0x16 0x13 0x00 */ -#define SST_SST25WF080B /* 0x62 0x16 0x14 0x00 */ +#define SST_SST25WF080B 0x1614 /* 0x62 0x16 0x14 0x00 */ #define SST_SST25VF512_REMS 0x48 /* REMS or RES opcode, same as SST25VF512A */ #define SST_SST25VF010_REMS 0x49 /* REMS or RES opcode, same as SST25VF010A */ #define SST_SST25VF020_REMS 0x43 /* REMS or RES opcode, same as SST25LF020A */
Hi Ben,
thanks for your patch. It had a lot of wrong white space (spaces instead of tabs) and you missed a few things:
- That first ID byte is actually Sanyo's. One can find some news articles on a cooperation between those on flash memory and other stuff in about 2003+. So my guess is that those chips were the outcome of that cooperation.
- The comment in flashchip.h stating that these chips were not seen in the wild is no longer valid apparently. :)
- The status register does not contain a BP2 bit but a top/bottom bit.
- There is no EWSR instruction so it has to use FEATURE_WRSR_WREN.
But the main part seems fine!
I have fixed those errors and added an appropriate status register pretty print function. While at it, I have also added the SST25WF020A and SST25WF040B as well.
The patch was additionally Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner stefan.tauner@alumni.tuwien.ac.at and Acked-by: Stefan Tauner stefan.tauner@alumni.tuwien.ac.at and commited in r1901. Thanks! -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner
flashrom mailing list flashrom@flashrom.org http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
-
Ben Gardner -
Ben Gardner -
Stefan Tauner