[U-Boot-Users] flash protection code in cfi_flash
sr at denx.de
Fri Mar 17 10:00:43 CET 2006
On Thursday, 16. March 2006 20:59, David Ho wrote:
> Some explanation is in order.
> While Intel flashes K3/C3 use the that command sequence as block
> unlock, the same command sequence (0x60 0xD0) is used to "clear all
> blocks bits" on the J3. This is restrictly speaking not an intel
> flash bug. The datasheet had not mentioned there is a change to the
> lock/unlock command in the datasheet revision history so it appears to
> have been there in the J3 datasheet from the start. Just that there
> is an inconsistency in the behaviour of the command sequence. They
> refer to it as Legacy lock/unlock in the Primary Vendor Specifc
> Exended Query Table. So information can be extracted from CFI
After digging through some Intel manuals it seems that you are correct here.
> With the evidence gathered thus far, it is simply small detail
> overlooked by the implementor of the original code, which is perfectly
> acceptable. Just that I would have hoped this thread elicited
> discussion that led to this discovery.
> I wonder how I can better present myself to make others more co-operative.
You did quite well. Sometimes you just need some patience (and endurance). ;-)
The best way to proceed (if nobody of the CFI experts objects) would be, if
you could create a patch to fix this problem using the "Legacy lock/unlock"
bit from the query table.
More information about the U-Boot