[flashrom] New flash chips, AT49F010 and CAT28F512

[Stefan Tauner]

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 04:28:28 +0100
Andrew Morgan <ziltro at ziltro.com> wrote:

> AT49F010 patch is basically a copy of the existing AT49F020 code, but 
> with half the size and the correct ID.
> The log was from a write of random data, after the chip already 
> contained different random data. I did separate read, erase, write tests 
> before but this log seems to show that PREW all work.
> 
> CAT28F512 I have successfully probed and read data from, but erase 
> fails. Could be because it needs 12v VPP. The CAT28F512 I have is 
> soldered on to a NIC. I haven't investigated if VPP is connected at all 
> yet. Thought I'd include the patch as-is anyway.
> 
> Both patches:
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morgan <ziltro at ziltro.com>
> 

hello andrew and thanks for the patches!

btw patch_es_: please post one per mail in the future, because
patchwork seems to be too dumb to recognize multiple patches in one
mail (http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/3395/).

review of the AT49F010 patch follows:
> Index: flashchips.c
> ===================================================================
> --- flashchips.c	(revision 1422)
> +++ flashchips.c	(working copy)
> @@ -2218,6 +2218,30 @@
>  
>  	{
>  		.vendor		= "Atmel",
> +		.name		= "AT49F010",

		.name		= "AT49(H)F010",
The H version is just a faster version (but with same VCC).

> +		.bustype	= BUS_PARALLEL,
> +		.manufacture_id	= ATMEL_ID,
> +		.model_id	= ATMEL_AT49F010,
> +		.total_size	= 128,
> +		.page_size	= 128,

should probably be 256 for now (semantics are different for each chip
driver for parallel chips afaik and it does not matter for jedec
routines iirc. NB: page_size is in bytes, so syncing it with total_size
does not make sense.)...

> +		.feature_bits	= FEATURE_EITHER_RESET,
> +		.tested		= TEST_OK_PREW,
> +		.probe		= probe_jedec,
> +		.probe_timing	= TIMING_ZERO,	/* Datasheet has no timing info specified */
> +		.block_erasers	=
> +		{
> +			{
> +				.eraseblocks = { {128 * 1024, 1} },
> +				.block_erase = erase_chip_block_jedec,
> +			}
> +		},
> +		.write		= write_jedec_1,
> +		.read		= read_memmapped,
> +		.voltage	= {4500, 5500},
> +	},
> +
> +	{
> +		.vendor		= "Atmel",
>  		.name		= "AT49F020",
>  		.bustype	= BUS_PARALLEL,
>  		.manufacture_id	= ATMEL_ID,
> Index: flashchips.h
> ===================================================================
> --- flashchips.h	(revision 1422)
> +++ flashchips.h	(working copy)
> @@ -181,6 +181,7 @@
>  #define ATMEL_AT45DB642		/* No ID available */
>  #define ATMEL_AT45DB642D	0x2800
>  #define ATMEL_AT49BV512		0x03
> +#define ATMEL_AT49F010		0x17	/* Also AT49HF010 */

correct id, but the comment should be /* Same as AT49HF010 */ to be consistent.

>  #define ATMEL_AT49F020		0x0B
>  #define ATMEL_AT49F002N		0x07	/* for AT49F002(N)  */
>  #define ATMEL_AT49F002NT		0x08	/* for AT49F002(N)T */

this chip and also the 2 Mb and 4 Mb versions support a boot block
protection that can be detected by software. it would be nice to add
a .printlock function to do this and inform the user. i have seen the
scheme before. Maybe there is already code in flashrom... but it is not
that important.
Adding the 4 Mb version OTOH is trivial (ID 0x13) and would be
appreciated. Nevertheless after addressing the in-line comments this
patch is:
Acked-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner at student.tuwien.ac.at>

do you have commit rights?
-- 
Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner