From patchwork Wed Aug 31 00:52:42 2011
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: New flash chip, AT49F010
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 00:52:42 -0000
From: Andrew Morgan <ziltro@ziltro.com>
X-Patchwork-Id: 3396
Message-Id: <4E5D85DA.3070308@ziltro.com>
To: flashrom@flashrom.org

On 30/08/11 23:25, Stefan Tauner wrote:

> review of the AT49F010 patch follows:
>> Index: flashchips.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- flashchips.c	(revision 1422)
>> +++ flashchips.c	(working copy)
>> @@ -2218,6 +2218,30 @@
>>
>>   	{
>>   		.vendor		= "Atmel",
>> +		.name		= "AT49F010",
> 		.name		= "AT49(H)F010",
> The H version is just a faster version (but with same VCC).
>
Are you suggesting I change the name to include (H)? If so does AT49F020 
have an H version too and should that be changed? If it wants to be 
changed what should flashchips.h have for the name?

>> +		.bustype	= BUS_PARALLEL,
>> +		.manufacture_id	= ATMEL_ID,
>> +		.model_id	= ATMEL_AT49F010,
>> +		.total_size	= 128,
>> +		.page_size	= 128,
> should probably be 256 for now (semantics are different for each chip
> driver for parallel chips afaik and it does not matter for jedec
> routines iirc. NB: page_size is in bytes, so syncing it with total_size
> does not make sense.)...
>
Ok, changed. I didn't know where to find information on what to set 
page_size, feature_bits or probe_timing to.


> this chip and also the 2 Mb and 4 Mb versions support a boot block
> protection that can be detected by software. it would be nice to add
> a .printlock function to do this and inform the user. i have seen the
> scheme before. Maybe there is already code in flashrom... but it is not
> that important.
I've looked at the patch mentioned in your later messages, and modified 
w39.c and chipdrivers.h, and added a .printlock = line to the AT49F010. 
The code compiled and ran and it told me the boot block lock was not 
active. This was just a test so I have left this out of the attached 
patch. I didn't do any tests to see if the printlock code affected 
read/write at all.

> Adding the 4 Mb version OTOH is trivial (ID 0x13) and would be
> appreciated. Nevertheless after addressing the in-line comments this
> patch is:
> Acked-by: Stefan Tauner<stefan.tauner@student.tuwien.ac.at>
>
> do you have commit rights?

I do not. Updated patch attached. I hope I got all the changes. :)

If I get a chance and can find datasheets I'll have a go at adding the 
larger AT49F chips.


Index: flashchips.c
===================================================================
--- flashchips.c	(revision 1423)
+++ flashchips.c	(working copy)
@@ -2218,6 +2218,30 @@
 
 	{
 		.vendor		= "Atmel",
+		.name		= "AT49F010",
+		.bustype	= BUS_PARALLEL,
+		.manufacture_id	= ATMEL_ID,
+		.model_id	= ATMEL_AT49F010,
+		.total_size	= 128,
+		.page_size	= 256,
+		.feature_bits	= FEATURE_EITHER_RESET,
+		.tested		= TEST_OK_PREW,
+		.probe		= probe_jedec,
+		.probe_timing	= TIMING_ZERO,	/* Datasheet has no timing info specified */
+		.block_erasers	=
+		{
+			{
+				.eraseblocks = { {128 * 1024, 1} },
+				.block_erase = erase_chip_block_jedec,
+			}
+		},
+ 		.write		= write_jedec_1,
+		.read		= read_memmapped,
+		.voltage	= {4500, 5500},
+	},
+
+	{
+		.vendor		= "Atmel",
 		.name		= "AT49F020",
 		.bustype	= BUS_PARALLEL,
 		.manufacture_id	= ATMEL_ID,
Index: flashchips.h
===================================================================
--- flashchips.h	(revision 1423)
+++ flashchips.h	(working copy)
@@ -181,6 +181,7 @@
 #define ATMEL_AT45DB642		/* No ID available */
 #define ATMEL_AT45DB642D	0x2800
 #define ATMEL_AT49BV512		0x03
+#define ATMEL_AT49F010		0x17	/* Same as AT49HF010 */
 #define ATMEL_AT49F020		0x0B
 #define ATMEL_AT49F002N		0x07	/* for AT49F002(N)  */
 #define ATMEL_AT49F002NT		0x08	/* for AT49F002(N)T */