Re: [flashrom] Numonyx N25Q064 (second try)

[Stefan Tauner]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:08:58 -0700
David Hendricks  wrote:
> This patch differentiates between the N25Q064 1.8V version and 3.0V version
> which have different JEDEC IDs.
>
> It extends the chip name to include the first few characters in the part
> number. The first two of those characters indicate the process technology
> (65nm) and feature set, neither of which matter for Flashrom. The third and
> fourth characters specify voltage and block/sector size and uniformity,
> which are important.
>
> To abstract the irrelevant portions of the part number leading up to the
> characters we care about, dots are used. This helps prevent unwanted
> changes in chip name that can break fragile scripts and confuse people.
> More about this schema here:
> http://www.flashrom.org/pipermail/flashrom/2012-July/009595.html
>
> Signed-off-by: David Hendricks
> Index: flashchips.c
>
> --- flashchips.c        (revision 1553)
> +++ flashchips.c        (working copy)
> @@ -5425,12 +5425,16 @@
>     {
>             .vendor         = "Numonyx",
>           .name           = "N25Q064",
>           /* ..1E = 1.8V, uniform 64KB/4KB blocks/sectors */
>           .name           = "N25Q064..1E",
>           .bustype        = BUS_SPI,
>           .manufacture_id = ST_ID,
>           .model_id       = ST_N25Q064,
>           .model_id       = ST_N25Q064__1E,
>           .total_size     = 8192,
>           .page_size      = 256,
>           /* supports SFDP */
>           /* OTP: 64B total; read 0x4B, write 0x42 */
>           .feature_bits   = FEATURE_WRSR_WREN | FEATURE_OTP,
>           .tested         = TEST_OK_PREW,

did you really test the 1.8V version too?
>             .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)?

There are a number of other N25Q* chips available apparently. Do you
plan to add them too (NB: http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/3652/)?
Anyone else? Steven, our datasheet muncher maybe? :)

Numonyx N25Q064 (second try)

[David Hendricks]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Stefan Tauner <
[e-mail]> 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.

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Stefan Tauner <
[e-mail]> 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 :-)

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Stefan Tauner <
[e-mail]> wrote:
> There are a number of other N25Q* chips available apparently. Do you
> plan to add them too (NB: http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/3652/)?
> Anyone else? Steven, our datasheet muncher maybe? :)

Would if I had more time...