[flashrom] [PATCH] Fix erase-blocks specification for the Atmel AT49F002(N)(T)

Sean Nelson audiohacked at gmail.com
Sat Jan 23 23:21:27 CET 2010

On 1/23/10 9:59 AM, Uwe Hermann wrote:
> See patch.
> According to my datasheet these erase-blocks are incorrect. I tested an
> AT49F002(N)T chip and "./flashrom -E" did indeed fail:
> ERASE FAILED at 0x0003c000! Expected 0xff, Read=0x44, failed byte count
> from 0x0003c000-0x0003ffff: 0x3fc0
> The failing location is always 0x3fc0 if the chip contains a certain
> image of random bytes. If I program another image the failing place is
> reproducibly always 0x3ef4. So it likely differs per image that is
> programmed on the chip before the erase is done.
> However, a read after an -E operation results in an image will all-0xff
> nonetheless. Interestingly, doing -E a second time will also report SUCCESS.
> My attached patch also reports the same error, still.
> As 0x3c000-0x03ffff is the 16KB boot block, the write-protection
> mechanism for that boot block seems to interfere. AFAIK we don't
> yet implement that mechanism (I might post a patch later).
> Anyway, the attached patch is more correct than svn anyway (unless I
> read the datasheet wrong), so we should apply it nevertheless IMHO.
> Oh, one question -- is the order of erase-blocks as specified in
> flashchips.c relevant? AT49F002(N) and AT49F002(N)T have different
> orders right now.
> Uwe.
> _______________________________________________
> flashrom mailing list
> flashrom at flashrom.org
> http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
http://atmel.com/dyn/products/product_card.asp?part_id=3076 for the 
for the AT49F002NT

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.flashrom.org/pipermail/flashrom/attachments/20100123/7a438861/attachment.html>

More information about the flashrom mailing list