From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anders Larsen Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:55:23 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] Incorrect flash ids? In-Reply-To: <14406.216.110.51.8.1073953444.squirrel@www.orkun.us> References: <14406.216.110.51.8.1073953444.squirrel@www.orkun.us> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de "listmember at orkun.us" schreibt: >Taken from include/flash.c... > >#define INTEL_ID_28F128J3 0x89189818 /* 16M = 8M x 16 x 128 */ ... >#define INTEL_ID_28F320J3A 0x00160016 /* 32M = 128K x 32 */ >#define INTEL_ID_28F640J3A 0x00170017 /* 64M = 128K x 64 */ >#define INTEL_ID_28F128J3A 0x00180018 /* 128M = 128K x 128 */ > >If I understand correctly, it seems to me that these definitions are >incorrect. I think they're not. > >I think correct definitions should be as follows: ... >#define INTEL_ID_28F320J3A 0x89168916 /* 32M = 128K x 32 */ >#define INTEL_ID_28F640J3A 0x89178917 /* 64M = 128K x 64 */ >#define INTEL_ID_28F128J3A 0x89188918 /* 128M = 128K x 128 */ The original IDs are correct; please verify with the data-sheets of the chips before starting to break things! > >Please note that INTEL_ID_28F128J3 also changed (0x89189818 => >0x89188918). I think 8 and 9 changed places due to a typo. I believe you're right about it being wrong (but I don't think 0x89188918 is correct, either. I don't have the data-sheet of that chip here, however, so I can't tell what it really should be). The reason nobody noticed 'till now is that this particular ID is never read from the chip - the boards that use this flash chip (cradle, csb226, ep7312 and innokom, never tests for the actual chip but uses a hard-coded ID instead). > Cheers Anders