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

[Bin Meng]

Hi Tom,

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 6:52 AM, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 04:31:44PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
>> +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?
>
> Indeed.  This looks like a fairly trivial sync-up, can you shoot me all
> of the patchwork links and I'll take a look?  Thanks!
>
> --

Thanks for checking. Here you are:

http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/419633/
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/419634/
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/419635/
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/419636/
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/419637/
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/419638/
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/419639/
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/419640/
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/419641/

They might not be applied cleanly now due to the significant delay
since it was originally posted to the mailing list. So far Jagan
pointed out only one issue and he said he would continue looking into
the patches but I did not receive any feedback for months.

Regards,
Bin