[flashrom] Support for HY29F002TC-90 rom

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

Hi David,

thanks for your patch.

On 18.06.2010 11:20, Michael Karcher wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 18.06.2010, 10:49 +0200 schrieb David Borg:
>
> First: Thank you for submitting this patch to flashrom.
>   
>> However, I'm not sure what the page_size should be. Datasheet:
>>     
> No one is. page_size is an underspecified setting that is used in
> completely different way in different contexts. For byte-wise JEDEC
> chips, I think the value is not used at all (which should be the
> long-term goal for every chip, as page_size should get replaced by
> better defined parameters).
>   

Yes, I will kill page_size soon. It is historical baggage, incorrect in
some places and we simply try to ignore it wherever possible.


>> http://www.datasheetarchive.com/pdf/Datasheet-029/DSA00514421.pdf
>>     
> Thanks for the link. On reading that data sheet, I found that the
> datasheet uses 10-bit addresses for the commands (555/2AA). This is
> expressed as "FEATURE_ADDR_2AA" in flashrom. Could you try whether the
> patch still works with this feature flag added, and if yes resubmit with
> it? Your chip seems to ignore the high address bits (which is common
> behaviour), thats why 5555/2AAA also works.
>   

To be honest, if unlimited addresses work fine, I'm tempted to say we
should use them. Maybe add some comment to .feature_bits that
FEATURE_ADDR_2AA would be correct, but it works without.
Wait.
I found another datasheet which says we have to use 5555/2AAA for this
chip: http://www.romservice.ru/datashee/f002.pdf
Please don't add FEATURE_ADDR_2AA. A small comment that some chip
revisions may need it may be a good idea, but it may break with older
chip revs.


> Except for FEATURE_ADDR_2AA, the patch is
>   

Sorry to nitpick, but this chip is FEATURE_EITHER_RESET, not
FEATURE_SHORT_RESET.


> Acked-by: Michael Karcher <flashrom at mkarcher.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
>
>   
>> Signed-off-by: David Borg (borg.db at gmail.com)
>>     
> Can you please use angle brackets in the Sign-Off?
>   

Regards,
Carl-Daniel

-- 
http://www.hailfinger.org/