[U-Boot] [PATCH v3 0/9] sf: Update flash params for supported read commands and sector size

[Bin Meng]

+Tom

Hi Jagan,

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Jagan,
>
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Jagan,
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Jagan Teki <jagannadh.teki at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 12 January 2015 at 09:12, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Jagan,
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Jagan Teki <jagannadh.teki at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 17 December 2014 at 13:32, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Jagan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Jagan Teki <jagannadh.teki at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 15 December 2014 at 19:21, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Jagan,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Jagan,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Jagan Teki <jagannadh.teki at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Bin,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 11 December 2014 at 08:34, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jagan,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Jagan Teki <jagannadh.teki at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Bin,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10 December 2014 at 18:21, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This series update SPI flash supported read commands per datasheet
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the flash params table, and change flash sector size to 4KiB as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> long as flash supports sector erase (20h) command, to ensure
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'sf erase offset +len' work on 4KiB boundary instead of 64KiB when
>>>>>>>>>>>>> given SECT_4K.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Changes in v3:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Rebase with Jagan's patch series @ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/419154/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bin Meng (9):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   sf: Update SST flash params
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   sf: Update Atmel flash params
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   sf: Update EON flash params
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   sf: Update GigaDevice flash params
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   sf: Update Macronix flash params
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   sf: Update Spansion flash params
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   sf: Update Micron flash params
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   sf: Update Winbond flash params
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   sf: Give proper spacing between flash table params
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the updates - have you verified these changes?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I verified some, but not all of these flash parts. The update is based
>>>>>>>>>>> on flash datasheet, so if something is broken, eg before this series
>>>>>>>>>>> the flash advertises only READ_NORM and after my series it is changed
>>>>>>>>>>> to READ_FULL, and let's say QUAD_IO_FAST is not working, it is very
>>>>>>>>>>> likely that the SPI controller driver has some bugs when supporting
>>>>>>>>>>> QUAD_IO_FAST.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since these updates were tested before, I will skip these for this PR.
>>>>>>>>>> Will test all the rest (except these) and send the PR soon.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Let me know your inputs?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am fine, as long as this PR will not contains other commits which
>>>>>>>>> modify the same sf_params.c to introduce more flash support. We can
>>>>>>>>> test these updates and if everything looks fine, apply these first and
>>>>>>>>> ask other commits to rebase on this series to introduce more flash
>>>>>>>>> support.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you have any additional comments about this patch series besides
>>>>>>>> the S25FL128S_64K and S25FL256S_64K sector size? If not, I can send
>>>>>>>> the v4.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm thinking about the other flashes too,  since these params were taken from
>>>>>>> previous working and Linux mtd.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You mean 'thinking about' or 'testing'? I should say previously they
>>>>>> might not be 100% working as per datasheet some flash params currently
>>>>>> are apparently wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes - about testing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ping? What about your test results about this patch series?
>>>
>>> Some were pending - Will comment, pls- wait.
>>>
>>> thanks!
>>> --
>>
>> I still don't see any additional comments. Looking at the history this
>> patch series has been sitting there for months. Would you please let
>> me know what you think about this series?
>>
>
> Could you respond this? I wonder if this series could be merged in
> before MW is closed.
>

I feel that you did not work on this. Can you please respond with any comments?

Regards,
Bin