[flashrom] Tested AT25DF161

[Stefan Tauner]

On Sat, 1 Mar 2014 23:12:15 +0400
Alex K <lepik.stv at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello I tested for cleaning work, reading, writing, memory AT25DF161 using
> Bus Pirate v4.
> Used:
> flashrom v0.9.6.1-r1704 on Windows 6.1 (x86)
> flashrom was built with GCC 4.7.2, little endian
> Baud rate is 115200.
> Detected Bus Pirate hardware v4
> Detected Bus Pirate firmware 6.2 ("v6.2-beta1")
> Using SPI command set v2.
> SPI speed is 8MHz
> Raw bitbang mode version 1
> Raw SPI mode version 1
> The following protocols are supported: SPI.
> Probing for Atmel AT25DF161, 2048 kB: probe_spi_rdid_generic: id1 0x1f, id2
> 0x4602
> Found Atmel flash chip "AT25DF161" (2048 kB, SPI) on buspirate_spi.
> Ignoring security lockdown (if present)
> Ignoring status register byte 2
> Chip status register is 0x0c.
> Chip status register: Sector Protection Register Lock (SRPL) is not set
> Chip status register: Bit 6 is not set
> Chip status register: Erase/Program Error (EPE) is not set
> Chip status register: WP# pin (WPP) is asserted
> Chip status register: Software Protection Status (SWP): all sectors are
> protected
> Chip status register: Write Enable Latch (WEL) is not set
> Chip status register: Write In Progress (WIP/BUSY) is not set
> ===
> 
> Initially, there was a problem with the use of long cables (> 20 cm).
> After verification of the firmware did not pass.
> Replaced wires from Bus Pirate at length (10cm), all turned out. Many
> thanks for the utility. I think that you can remove the status UNTESTED
> with this chip. Thank you again.
> I think it is reasonable to point out the page on the wiki that the length
> of wire for the Bus Pirate is very desirable <= 10 cm, to avoid many
> mistakes. This saves the trouble of starting recording, reading chips.
> 
> Sorry for my bad english, I'm from Russia.


Hello Alex,

thanks for your report!
I am wondering a bit about the status register bits. According to your
log the software write protection is enabled (and the parsing of the
raw value 0x0c seems to be correct, so this is not only a cosmetic
problem). Did you change anything since you wrote to the chip?

Regarding the cable lengths:
The troubleshooting section of the bus pirate wiki page links to this:
http://flashrom.org/ISP and the first problem mentioned there are too long cables ;)

-- 
Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner