[flashrom] Macronix MX25L6445E

[Wagner, Helge (GE Germany)]

Stefan,

Did you use my latest patch (at
http://www.flashrom.org/pipermail/flashrom/2011-June/007013.html )?


Carl-Daniel,

> >> To be sure that the spi_block_erase_20 works for both the MX25L6405

> >> and the MX25L6445E, we could change the block erase size from 64K 
> >> to 4K. This should work even for the MX25L6405, but with the side 
> >> effect of the erase taking longer than needed.

This was the comment for my first try.

> Sorry, but AFAICS this will cause chip corruption. To be exact, 
> specifying a too small eraseblock size (4 kB instead of 64 kB) means 
> that flashrom will walk the device in 4 kB blocks, erase each block 
> and write to it. Now if the actual erase block size is bigger than the

> specified block size, you'll get this:

And exactly because of that I have reworked the patch (see above).

Regards,
Helge

-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Reinauer [mailto:stefan.reinauer at coreboot.org] 
Sent: Montag, 18. Juli 2011 23:49
To: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
Cc: Wagner, Helge (GE Germany); flashrom at flashrom.org
Subject: Re: [flashrom] Macronix MX25L6445E

* Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net> [110718
23:44]:
> Am 18.07.2011 19:07 schrieb Stefan Reinauer:
> > * Wagner, Helge (GE Intelligent Platforms) <Helge.Wagner at ge.com>
[110527 15:46]:
> >   
> >> To be sure that the spi_block_erase_20 works for both the MX25L6405

> >> and the MX25L6445E, we could change the block erase size from 64K 
> >> to 4K. This should work even for the MX25L6405, but with the side 
> >> effect of the erase taking longer than needed.
> >>
> >>  
> >>
> >> Any comments?
> >>     
> >  
> > works great for me! 
> >  
> >   
> >> Please find my patches included.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Helge Wagner <helge.wagner at ge.com>
> >>     
> > Acked-by: Stefan Reinauer <stefan.reinauer at coreboot.org>
> >   
> 
> Sorry, but AFAICS this will cause chip corruption. To be exact, 
> specifying a too small eraseblock size (4 kB instead of 64 kB) means 
> that flashrom will walk the device in 4 kB blocks, erase each block 
> and write to it. Now if the actual erase block size is bigger than the

> specified block size, you'll get this:

Yes, I agree that changing the block erase size is risky. Good thing the
patch does not change it, so it should be save to apply, plus it solves
the problem.

Stefan