[flashrom] [PATCH] Added support for MX23L3254

Stefan Tauner stefan.tauner at alumni.tuwien.ac.at
Sun Apr 27 06:38:34 CEST 2014

On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 18:46:31 -0400
Michael Coppola <michael.n.coppola at gmail.com> wrote:

> I've added a new definition for the Macronix MX23L3254 chip (4M).  Since
> it is a mask ROM, it doesn't support write or erase.  Let me know if the
> definition is incorrect in describing this.
> Here's the datasheet for reference:
> http://www.macronix.com/Lists/DataSheet/Attachments/1233/MX23L3254,%203.0-3.3V,%2032Mb,%20v1.5.pdf
> Probe and read works when tested on a real chip:
> $ ./flashrom -p buspirate_spi:dev=/dev/ttyUSB0 -r trying_again2.bin
> flashrom v0.9.7-r1767 on Linux 3.8.0-37-generic (x86_64)
> flashrom is free software, get the source code at http://www.flashrom.org
> Calibrating delay loop... OK.
> Found Macronix flash chip "MX23L3254" (4096 kB, SPI) on buspirate_spi.
> ===
> This flash part has status UNTESTED for operations: ERASE WRITE
> The test status of this chip may have been updated in the latest development
> version of flashrom. If you are running the latest development version,
> please email a report to flashrom at flashrom.org if any of the above
> operations
> work correctly for you with this flash part. Please include the flashrom
> output with the additional -V option for all operations you tested (-V, -Vr,
> -VE, -Vw), and mention which mainboard or programmer you tested.
> Please mention your board in the subject line. Thanks for your help!
> Reading flash... done.
> Signed-off-by: Michael Coppola <michael.n.coppola at gmail.com>

Hello Michael,

thanks for your patch. There are datasheets available on Macronix'
website for other ROMs as well. I am aware that you probably don't have
the respective chips available but adding them without testing is
perfectly OK (even more so because they can't be modified anyway).
Would you like to add them too?

Regarding the definition in the patch as is...
The .tested field should be TEST_OK_PR | TEST_BAD_EW for tested ROMs
(the latter does not exist yet, but will soon). Untested ROMs should
just be tagged as TEST_BAD_EW.

The following fields could be left out as well because they are
initialized to 0/NULL anyway
feature_bits, block_erasers, unlock and write too.
I would set the latter to NULL however as you did and add the comment
about it being a ROM there.

Please let me know if you are planning to work on this patch or if I
should incorporate it as it, thanks.
Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner

More information about the flashrom mailing list