Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 5 Jun 2013 15:57:59 +1000 | Subject | [RFC] Micron M25P80 Part name variants | From | Peter Crosthwaite <> |
| |
Hi All,
For micron M25P80 parts there is a mix of naming conventions in the device table:
/* Micron */ { "n25q064", INFO(0x20ba17, 0, 64 * 1024, 128, 0) }, { "n25q128a11", INFO(0x20bb18, 0, 64 * 1024, 256, 0) }, { "n25q128a13", INFO(0x20ba18, 0, 64 * 1024, 256, 0) }, { "n25q256a", INFO(0x20ba19, 0, 64 * 1024, 512, SECT_4K) },
n25q128 has a11 and a13 variants, while 256 does not. Should this be consistent across parts? If so should we adopt Liming Wangs "axx" precedent universally? Here is a hunk from Ed Maste that applies the relevant change to QEMU (currently on list) that would be nice to merge. Can we fix this Linux side in similar fashion?
/* Micron */ - { INFO("n25q032a", 0x20bb16, 0, 64 << 10, 64, ER_4K) }, - { INFO("n25q128a11", 0x20bb18, 0, 64 << 10, 256, 0) }, - { INFO("n25q128a13", 0x20ba18, 0, 64 << 10, 256, 0) }, - { INFO("n25q256a", 0x20ba19, 0, 64 << 10, 512, ER_4K) }, + { INFO("n25q032a11", 0x20bb16, 0, 64 << 10, 64, ER_4K) }, + { INFO("n25q032a13", 0x20ba16, 0, 64 << 10, 64, ER_4K) }, + { INFO("n25q064a11", 0x20bb17, 0, 64 << 10, 128, ER_4K) }, + { INFO("n25q064a13", 0x20ba17, 0, 64 << 10, 128, ER_4K) }, + { INFO("n25q128a11", 0x20bb18, 0, 64 << 10, 256, ER_4K) }, + { INFO("n25q128a13", 0x20ba18, 0, 64 << 10, 256, ER_4K) }, + { INFO("n25q256a11", 0x20bb19, 0, 64 << 10, 512, ER_4K) }, + { INFO("n25q256a13", 0x20ba19, 0, 64 << 10, 512, ER_4K) },
Regards, Peter
| |