CFI command set 0002 (AMD/Fujitsu) work.
Hi,
I'm currently working on cfi_cmdset_0002.c to get erase-suspend-program working. So far I've taken all the chip status checking code and refactored it into a single function -- it was all a bit of a mess.
A couple of questions:
1. There's a fair amount of crap related to very broken SST chips (all the stuff for retrying commands). a) This is mess and appears only applicable to a very few number of chips; b) I'm not sure it would even work if talking to the chip is broken then retrying a few times won't guarantee it will work. I'd suggest removing this stuff from cfi_cmdset_0002.c. Clearly the SST chips aren't compliant even though they claim to be. Thoughts?
2. The "fast programming" feature (unlock bypass) which is currently always disabled (due to "code brokeness"). I don't believe this will ever work with erase-suspends. Should the "fast programming" stuff be removed?
David Vrabel
Signature · 4 lines
David Vrabel, Design Engineer Arcom, Clifton Road Tel: +44 (0)1223 411200 ext. 3233 Cambridge CB1 7EA, UK Web: http://www.arcom.com/
Quoted 3 lines · David Vrabel
I'm currently working on
cfi_cmdset_0002.cto get erase-suspend-program working. So far I've taken all the chip status checking code and refactored it into a single function -- it was all a bit of a mess.
Thanks for doing this.
Quoted 7 lines
1. There's a fair amount of crap related to very broken SST chips (all the stuff for retrying commands). a) This is mess and appears only applicable to a very few number of chips; b) I'm not sure it would even work if talking to the chip is broken then retrying a few times won't guarantee it will work. I'd suggest removing this stuff from
cfi_cmdset_0002.c. Clearly the SST chips aren't compliant even though they claim to be. Thoughts?
That seems reasonable to me. It's horrid. I wonder if we could do it in a wrapper around the 'real' chip driver, only for the broken chips?
Quoted 4 lines
2. The "fast programming" feature (unlock bypass) which is currently always disabled (due to "code brokeness"). I don't believe this will ever work with erase-suspends. Should the "fast programming" stuff be removed?
Yes, drop it until/unless someone wants to make it work.
Signature · 1 line
dwmw2
Quoted 2 lines · David Vrabel
I'm currently working on
cfi_cmdset_0002.cto get erase-suspend-program working.
Erase-suspend-program is still disabled...
Quoted 1 line
So far I've taken all the chip status checking code and refactored it into a single function -- it was all a bit of a mess.
This has been done and checked into CVS. I believe I haven't broken anything. Users of interleaved AMD chips may wish to check I didn't miss anything.
Quoted 1 line
1. There's a fair amount of crap related to very broken SST chips (all the stuff for retrying commands). I'd suggest removing this stuff from
cfi_cmdset_0002.c.
This has now been removed from CVS.
David Vrabel
Signature · 4 lines
David Vrabel, Design Engineer Arcom, Clifton Road Tel: +44 (0)1223 411200 ext. 3233 Cambridge CB1 7EA, UK Web: http://www.arcom.com/
Quoted 3 lines · David Vrabel
I'm currently working on
cfi_cmdset_0002.cto get erase-suspend-program working. So far I've taken all the chip status checking code and refactored it into a single function -- it was all a bit of a mess.
Very nice.
Quoted 2 lines
1. There's a fair amount of crap related to very broken SST chips (all the stuff for retrying commands).
There's really not that much code.
Quoted 2 lines
a) This is mess and appears only
applicable to a very few number of chips;
Yes - it's only for a small number.
Quoted 3 lines
b) I'm not sure it would even
work if talking to the chip is broken then retrying a few times won't guarantee it will work.
Yes, it's so horribly broken that there is *never* a guarantee that it will work. I can't think of a reliable way to go about it other than give it a reasonable number of tries.
Quoted 3 lines
I'd suggest removing this stuff from
cfi_cmdset_0002.c. Clearly the SST chips aren't compliant even though they claim to be. Thoughts?
Sure. It is clutter and is only for a small number of chips that should be replaced with chips that work. I'll see what I can do on my own to fix the problems I have to deal with.
Quoted 4 lines
2. The "fast programming" feature (unlock bypass) which is currently always disabled (due to "code brokeness"). I don't believe this will ever work with erase-suspends. Should the "fast programming" stuff be removed?
I don't see a reason to keep it.
Signature · 2 lines
Thayne Harbaugh Linux Networx