Patchwork [8/8] Added (N) to the name of MX29F002B/T devices.

login
register
about
Submitter Stefan Tauner
Date 2011-03-15 15:29:16
Message ID <f117a1b9b2768ad1c834dfc63c8c7c98257557b4.1300202693.git.stefan.tauner@student.tuwien.ac.at>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/2794/
State Accepted
Headers show

Comments

Stefan Tauner - 2011-03-15 15:29:16
Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner@student.tuwien.ac.at>
---
 flashchips.c |    4 ++--
 flashchips.h |    4 ++--
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Idwer Vollering - 2011-04-20 20:00:41
2011/3/15 Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner@student.tuwien.ac.at>:
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner@student.tuwien.ac.at>

Acked-by: Idwer Vollering <vidwer@gmail.com>

But *only* if the probe/read/erase/write status is not affected.

> ---
>  flashchips.c |    4 ++--
>  flashchips.h |    4 ++--
>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/flashchips.c b/flashchips.c
> index 7cb7d39..97aafef 100644
> --- a/flashchips.c
> +++ b/flashchips.c
> @@ -4209,7 +4209,7 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = {
>
>        {
>                .vendor         = "Macronix",
> -               .name           = "MX29F002B",
> +               .name           = "MX29F002(N)B",
>                .bustype        = CHIP_BUSTYPE_PARALLEL,
>                .manufacture_id = MACRONIX_ID,
>                .model_id       = MACRONIX_MX29F002B,
> @@ -4240,7 +4240,7 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = {
>
>        {
>                .vendor         = "Macronix",
> -               .name           = "MX29F002T",
> +               .name           = "MX29F002(N)T",
>                .bustype        = CHIP_BUSTYPE_PARALLEL,
>                .manufacture_id = MACRONIX_ID,
>                .model_id       = MACRONIX_MX29F002T,
> diff --git a/flashchips.h b/flashchips.h
> index 9b08d25..9782188 100644
> --- a/flashchips.h
> +++ b/flashchips.h
> @@ -361,8 +361,8 @@
>  #define MACRONIX_MX25L3235D    0x5E16  /* MX25L3225D/MX25L3235D/MX25L3237D */
>  #define MACRONIX_MX29F001B     0x19
>  #define MACRONIX_MX29F001T     0x18
> -#define MACRONIX_MX29F002B     0x34    /* Same as MX29F002NB */
> -#define MACRONIX_MX29F002T     0xB0    /* Same as MX29F002NT */
> +#define MACRONIX_MX29F002B     0x34    /* Same as MX29F002NB; N has reset pin n/c. */
> +#define MACRONIX_MX29F002T     0xB0    /* Same as MX29F002NT; N has reset pin n/c. */
>  #define MACRONIX_MX29F004B     0x46
>  #define MACRONIX_MX29F004T     0x45
>  #define MACRONIX_MX29F022T     0x36    /* Same as MX29F022NT */
> --
> 1.7.1
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> flashrom mailing list
> flashrom@flashrom.org
> http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
>
Stefan Tauner - 2011-04-20 20:45:31
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 22:00:41 +0200
Idwer Vollering <vidwer@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2011/3/15 Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner@student.tuwien.ac.at>:
> > Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner@student.tuwien.ac.at>
> 
> Acked-by: Idwer Vollering <vidwer@gmail.com>
> 
> But *only* if the probe/read/erase/write status is not affected.

the only difference between the non-n version and the n version is,
that the reset pin of the n version is not connected.
do we even use the hardware reset? if not this should not change
anything.

ps: the difference between B and T is the (non-uniform) sector
structure
pps: i have a MX29F002NTPC-12, but i dont have any indication that i
have tested it for full PREW. there was a successful test for
MX29F001TPC-12 though on the ml (and i have submitted an already acked
patch for it). want me to test it "again"?
Stefan Tauner - 2011-08-07 14:59:39
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 22:45:31 +0200
Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner@student.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 22:00:41 +0200
> Idwer Vollering <vidwer@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > 2011/3/15 Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner@student.tuwien.ac.at>:
> > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner@student.tuwien.ac.at>
> > 
> > Acked-by: Idwer Vollering <vidwer@gmail.com>
> > 
> > But *only* if the probe/read/erase/write status is not affected.
> 
> the only difference between the non-n version and the n version is,
> that the reset pin of the n version is not connected.
> do we even use the hardware reset? if not this should not change
> anything.
> 
> ps: the difference between B and T is the (non-uniform) sector
> structure
> pps: i have a MX29F002NTPC-12, but i dont have any indication that i
> have tested it for full PREW. there was a successful test for
> MX29F001TPC-12 though on the ml (and i have submitted an already acked
> patch for it). want me to test it "again"?
> 

i have finally added this to my tested stuff branch and will commit it
later. thanks for the review idwer!

Patch

diff --git a/flashchips.c b/flashchips.c
index 7cb7d39..97aafef 100644
--- a/flashchips.c
+++ b/flashchips.c
@@ -4209,7 +4209,7 @@  struct flashchip flashchips[] = {
 
 	{
 		.vendor		= "Macronix",
-		.name		= "MX29F002B",
+		.name		= "MX29F002(N)B",
 		.bustype	= CHIP_BUSTYPE_PARALLEL,
 		.manufacture_id	= MACRONIX_ID,
 		.model_id	= MACRONIX_MX29F002B,
@@ -4240,7 +4240,7 @@  struct flashchip flashchips[] = {
 
 	{
 		.vendor		= "Macronix",
-		.name		= "MX29F002T",
+		.name		= "MX29F002(N)T",
 		.bustype	= CHIP_BUSTYPE_PARALLEL,
 		.manufacture_id	= MACRONIX_ID,
 		.model_id	= MACRONIX_MX29F002T,
diff --git a/flashchips.h b/flashchips.h
index 9b08d25..9782188 100644
--- a/flashchips.h
+++ b/flashchips.h
@@ -361,8 +361,8 @@ 
 #define MACRONIX_MX25L3235D	0x5E16	/* MX25L3225D/MX25L3235D/MX25L3237D */
 #define MACRONIX_MX29F001B	0x19
 #define MACRONIX_MX29F001T	0x18
-#define MACRONIX_MX29F002B	0x34	/* Same as MX29F002NB */
-#define MACRONIX_MX29F002T	0xB0	/* Same as MX29F002NT */
+#define MACRONIX_MX29F002B	0x34	/* Same as MX29F002NB; N has reset pin n/c. */
+#define MACRONIX_MX29F002T	0xB0	/* Same as MX29F002NT; N has reset pin n/c. */
 #define MACRONIX_MX29F004B	0x46
 #define MACRONIX_MX29F004T	0x45
 #define MACRONIX_MX29F022T	0x36	/* Same as MX29F022NT */