[U-Boot] [PATCHv4 CFI flash] Work around bug in Numonyx P33/P30 256-Mbit?65nm flash chips.

[Philippe De Muyter]

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 05:57:00PM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
> Hi Philippe,
> 
> unfortunately your patch base64 encoded. :-(

Are you sure ?  It isn't so in my `sent' folder.

> 
> Even though git seems to be able to handle this, your commit text still has 
> some problems. Please see below:
> 
> On Tuesday 17 August 2010 11:49:24 Philippe De Muyter wrote:
> > I have "ported" U-boot to a in house made board with Numonyx Axcell P33/P30
> > 256-Mbit 65nm flash chips.
> > 
> > After some time :( searching for bugs in our board or soft, we have
> > discovered that those chips have a small but annoying bug, documented in
> > "Numonyx Axcell P33/P30 256-Mbit Specification Update"
> > 
> > It states :
> > When customer uses [...] block unlock, the block lock status might be
> > altered inadvertently. Lock status might be set to either 01h or 03h
> > unexpectedly (00h as expected data), which leads to program/erase failure
> > on certain blocks.
> > 
> > A working workaround is given, which I have applied and tested with success
> > :
> > 
> > Workaround:  If the interval between 60h and its subsequent command
> > 	     can be guaranteed within 20μs, Option I is recommended,
> > 	     otherwise Option II (involves hardware) should be selected.
> > Option I: The table below lists the detail command sequences:
> > Command
> > 	      Data bus           Address bus       Remarks
> > Sequence
> >   1              90h            Block Address
> > 						   Read Lock Status
> >   2             Read         Block Address + 02h
> >  (2)(3)                                      (1)
> > 3                60h           Block Address
> >  (2)(3)                                      (1)   Lock/Unlock/RCR
> > Configuration 4           D0h/01h/03h        Block Address
> > Notes:
> > (1) Block Address refers to RCR configuration data only when the 60h
> >     command sequence is used to set RCR register combined with 03h
> >     subsequent command.
> > (2) For the third and fourth command sequences, the Block Address must
> >     be the same.
> > (3) The interval between 60h command and its subsequent D0h/01h/2Fh/03h
> >     commands should be less than 20μs.
> > 
> > And here is a log comparison of a simple (destructive) flash test without
> > and with the workaround.
> > 
> > diff -U 50 without-numonyx-workaround.log with-numonyx-workaround.log
> > -U-Boot 2010.06-00696-g22b002c-dirty (Aug 16 2010 - 15:07:47)
> > +U-Boot 2010.06-00696-g22b002c-dirty (Aug 16 2010 - 15:25:19)
> 
> You still have this "diff" stuff in the commit text. This results in the 
> remaining stuff being dropped by git after applying. Please remove those diff 
> lines.

Sorry about that; I had tested with `patch', but of course it does not
need the commit text part :(

> And please don't send base64 encoded mails. I strongly suggest using 
> "git send-email".

My experience with `git send-email' is not that good (none of the mails I sent
this way were answered), but I'll try again.

Thanks

Philippe

-- 
Philippe De Muyter  phdm at macqel dot be  Tel +32 27029044
Macq Electronique SA  rue de l'Aeronef 2  B-1140 Bruxelles  Fax +32 27029077