Re: [flashrom] [PATCH 8/8] Added (N) to the name of MX29F002B/T devices.

[Idwer Vollering]

2011/3/15 Stefan Tauner :
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner

Acked-by: Idwer Vollering

But *only* if the probe/read/erase/write status is not affected.
> flashchips.c |    4 ++--
>  flashchips.h |    4 ++--
>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/flashchips.c b/flashchips.c
> index 7cb7d39..97aafef 100644
> --- a/flashchips.c
> +++ b/flashchips.c
> @@ -4209,7 +4209,7 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = {
>
> {
>                .vendor         = "Macronix",
> .name           = "MX29F002B",
> .name           = "MX29F002(N)B",
>
> .bustype        = CHIP_BUSTYPE_PARALLEL,
>                .manufacture_id = MACRONIX_ID,
>                .model_id       = MACRONIX_MX29F002B,
> @@ -4240,7 +4240,7 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = {
>
> {
>                .vendor         = "Macronix",
> .name           = "MX29F002T",
> .name           = "MX29F002(N)T",
>
> .bustype        = CHIP_BUSTYPE_PARALLEL,
>                .manufacture_id = MACRONIX_ID,
>                .model_id       = MACRONIX_MX29F002T,
> diff --git a/flashchips.h b/flashchips.h
> index 9b08d25..9782188 100644
> --- a/flashchips.h
> +++ b/flashchips.h
> @@ -361,8 +361,8 @@
>  #define MACRONIX_MX25L3235D    0x5E16  /* MX25L3225D/MX25L3235D/MX25L3237D */
>  #define MACRONIX_MX29F001B     0x19
>  #define MACRONIX_MX29F001T     0x18
> -#define MACRONIX_MX29F002B     0x34    /* Same as MX29F002NB */
> -#define MACRONIX_MX29F002T     0xB0    /* Same as MX29F002NT */
> +#define MACRONIX_MX29F002B     0x34    /* Same as MX29F002NB; N has reset pin n/c. */
> +#define MACRONIX_MX29F002T     0xB0    /* Same as MX29F002NT; N has reset pin n/c. */
>  #define MACRONIX_MX29F004B     0x46
>  #define MACRONIX_MX29F004T     0x45
>  #define MACRONIX_MX29F022T     0x36    /* Same as MX29F022NT */
> --
> 1.7.1
>
> flashrom mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom

[PATCH 8/8] Added (N) to the name of MX29F002B/T devices.

[Stefan Tauner]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 22:00:41 +0200
Idwer Vollering  wrote:
> 2011/3/15 Stefan Tauner :
> > Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner
>
> Acked-by: Idwer Vollering
>
> But *only* if the probe/read/erase/write status is not affected.

the only difference between the non-n version and the n version is,
that the reset pin of the n version is not connected.
do we even use the hardware reset? if not this should not change
anything.

ps: the difference between B and T is the (non-uniform) sector
structure
pps: i have a MX29F002NTPC-12, but i dont have any indication that i
have tested it for full PREW. there was a successful test for
MX29F001TPC-12 though on the ml (and i have submitted an already acked
patch for it). want me to test it "again"?

[PATCH 8/8] Added (N) to the name of MX29F002B/T devices.

[Stefan Tauner]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 22:45:31 +0200
Stefan Tauner  wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 22:00:41 +0200
> Idwer Vollering  wrote:
> > 2011/3/15 Stefan Tauner :
> > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner
> >
> > Acked-by: Idwer Vollering
> >
> > But *only* if the probe/read/erase/write status is not affected.
>
> the only difference between the non-n version and the n version is,
> that the reset pin of the n version is not connected.
> do we even use the hardware reset? if not this should not change
> anything.
>
> ps: the difference between B and T is the (non-uniform) sector
> structure
> pps: i have a MX29F002NTPC-12, but i dont have any indication that i
> have tested it for full PREW. there was a successful test for
> MX29F001TPC-12 though on the ml (and i have submitted an already acked
> patch for it). want me to test it "again"?

i have finally added this to my tested stuff branch and will commit it
later. thanks for the review idwer!