| Message ID | 1456128205-5092-12-git-send-email-marcin.krzeminski@nokia.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:03 AM, <marcin.krzeminski@nokia.com> wrote: > From: Marcin Krzeminski <marcin.krzeminski@nokia.com> > > Signed-off-by: Marcin Krzeminski <marcin.krzeminski@nokia.com> > --- > hw/block/m25p80.c | 11 +++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/hw/block/m25p80.c b/hw/block/m25p80.c > index 2b7d19f..987fe07 100644 > --- a/hw/block/m25p80.c > +++ b/hw/block/m25p80.c > @@ -99,6 +99,12 @@ static const FlashPartInfo known_devices[] = { > > { INFO("at45db081d", 0x1f2500, 0, 64 << 10, 16, ER_4K) }, > > + /* Atmel EEPROMS - it is assumed, that don't care bit in command > + * is set to 0. Block protection is not supported. > + */ > + { INFO("at25128a-nonjedec", 0x0, 0, 1, 131072, WR_1) }, > + { INFO("at25256a-nonjedec", 0x0, 0, 1, 262144, WR_1) }, > + > /* EON -- en25xxx */ > { INFO("en25f32", 0x1c3116, 0, 64 << 10, 64, ER_4K) }, > { INFO("en25p32", 0x1c2016, 0, 64 << 10, 64, 0) }, > @@ -438,6 +444,11 @@ void flash_write8(Flash *s, uint64_t addr, uint8_t data) > > static inline int get_addr_length(Flash *s) > { > + /* check if eeprom is in use */ > + if (s->pi->flags == WR_1) { > + return 2; > + } > + Neat! But I think this indicates the flag is incorrectly named. Should be renamed to EEPROM or something like. Otherwise: Reviewed-by: Peter Crosthwaite <crosthwaite.peter@gmail.com> > switch (s->cmd_in_progress) { > case PP4: > case READ4: > -- > 2.5.0 >
W dniu 17.03.2016 o 18:39, Peter Crosthwaite pisze: > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:03 AM, <marcin.krzeminski@nokia.com> wrote: >> From: Marcin Krzeminski <marcin.krzeminski@nokia.com> >> >> Signed-off-by: Marcin Krzeminski <marcin.krzeminski@nokia.com> >> --- >> hw/block/m25p80.c | 11 +++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/hw/block/m25p80.c b/hw/block/m25p80.c >> index 2b7d19f..987fe07 100644 >> --- a/hw/block/m25p80.c >> +++ b/hw/block/m25p80.c >> @@ -99,6 +99,12 @@ static const FlashPartInfo known_devices[] = { >> >> { INFO("at45db081d", 0x1f2500, 0, 64 << 10, 16, ER_4K) }, >> >> + /* Atmel EEPROMS - it is assumed, that don't care bit in command >> + * is set to 0. Block protection is not supported. >> + */ >> + { INFO("at25128a-nonjedec", 0x0, 0, 1, 131072, WR_1) }, >> + { INFO("at25256a-nonjedec", 0x0, 0, 1, 262144, WR_1) }, >> + >> /* EON -- en25xxx */ >> { INFO("en25f32", 0x1c3116, 0, 64 << 10, 64, ER_4K) }, >> { INFO("en25p32", 0x1c2016, 0, 64 << 10, 64, 0) }, >> @@ -438,6 +444,11 @@ void flash_write8(Flash *s, uint64_t addr, uint8_t data) >> >> static inline int get_addr_length(Flash *s) >> { >> + /* check if eeprom is in use */ >> + if (s->pi->flags == WR_1) { >> + return 2; >> + } >> + > > Neat! > > But I think this indicates the flag is incorrectly named. Should be > renamed to EEPROM or something like. Yes, EEPROM sound much better. Will be changed in v5. Thanks, Marcin > > > Otherwise: > > Reviewed-by: Peter Crosthwaite <crosthwaite.peter@gmail.com> > >> switch (s->cmd_in_progress) { >> case PP4: >> case READ4: >> -- >> 2.5.0 >> > >
diff --git a/hw/block/m25p80.c b/hw/block/m25p80.c index 2b7d19f..987fe07 100644 --- a/hw/block/m25p80.c +++ b/hw/block/m25p80.c @@ -99,6 +99,12 @@ static const FlashPartInfo known_devices[] = { { INFO("at45db081d", 0x1f2500, 0, 64 << 10, 16, ER_4K) }, + /* Atmel EEPROMS - it is assumed, that don't care bit in command + * is set to 0. Block protection is not supported. + */ + { INFO("at25128a-nonjedec", 0x0, 0, 1, 131072, WR_1) }, + { INFO("at25256a-nonjedec", 0x0, 0, 1, 262144, WR_1) }, + /* EON -- en25xxx */ { INFO("en25f32", 0x1c3116, 0, 64 << 10, 64, ER_4K) }, { INFO("en25p32", 0x1c2016, 0, 64 << 10, 64, 0) }, @@ -438,6 +444,11 @@ void flash_write8(Flash *s, uint64_t addr, uint8_t data) static inline int get_addr_length(Flash *s) { + /* check if eeprom is in use */ + if (s->pi->flags == WR_1) { + return 2; + } + switch (s->cmd_in_progress) { case PP4: case READ4: