Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] m25p80: Fix wrong jedec id for Numonyx n25q128

[walimis]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 02:32:33PM +1000, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
>Hi Liming,
>
>On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Liming Wang <address@hidden> wrote:
>> The jedec id of "n25q128" should be 0x20bb18, not 0x20ba18.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Liming Wang <address@hidden>
>> ---
>>  hw/m25p80.c |    2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/m25p80.c b/hw/m25p80.c
>> index 3895e73..58ae754 100644
>> --- a/hw/m25p80.c
>> +++ b/hw/m25p80.c
>> @@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ static const FlashPartInfo known_devices[] = {
>>      { INFO("w25q64",      0xef4017,      0,  64 << 10, 128, ER_4K) },
>>
>>      /* Numonyx -- n25q128 */
>> -    { INFO("n25q128",      0x20ba18,      0,  64 << 10, 256, 0) },
>> +    { INFO("n25q128",      0x20bb18,      0,  64 << 10, 256, 0) },
>>
>
>Im not sure this is right. Ive looked through the datasheets for this
>part. Rev 1.0 (Feb 2010) of the data sheet has the 0x20bb18 Jedec code
>but Rev 7 (Feb 2011) has 0x20ba18. We have however, noticed here with
>some actual parts that the Jedec code varies from one board to the
>next between these two. The mainline Linux Kernel uses 0x20ba18
>(drivers/mtd/devices/m25p80.c):
>
>665
>666         /* Micron */
>667         { "n25q128",  INFO(0x20ba18, 0, 64 * 1024, 256, 0) },
>668         { "n25q256a", INFO(0x20ba19, 0, 64 * 1024, 512, SECT_4K) },

I have submitted a patch to mainline kernel to add 0x20bb18 jedec code.

http://git.infradead.org/users/dedekind/l2-mtd.git/commit/0f722de047e3e041d33446b570f8c960ad188965

Anyway, I think we don't need this patch.

Regards,
Liming Wang

>669
>
>And the Xilinx Linux kernel has both:
>
>       /* Micron */
>       { "n25q128",  INFO(0x20ba18, 0, 64 * 1024, 256, 0) },
>       { "n25q256a", INFO(0x20ba19, 0, 64 * 1024, 512, SECT_4K) },
>       /* Numonyx flash n25q128 - FIXME check the name */
>       { "n25q128",   INFO(0x20bb18, 0, 64 * 1024, 256, 0) },
>
>I think 20ba18 is correct given its specifed by the more recent
>datasheets, but if you are comparing to an earlier revision Zynq board
>then you may see a diff. Also if you are using Linux, check your
>kernel to see if you have the 0x20ba10 line as older versions of the
>Xilinx kernel may only have 0x20bb18. May be a case of just a revup of
>your kernel.
>
>Another solution is to add both to QEMU, although having to
>distinguish between the two different parts with the same name is
>messy.
>
>Regards,
>Peter
>
>>      { },
>>  };
>> --
>> 1.7.9.5
>>
>>