Hi Cédric > open list:All patches CC here <[email protected]>; open list:Block layer > core <[email protected]> > Cc: Troy Lee <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 03/14] hw/block/m25p80: Rename w25q32dw to > w25q33pw > > On 10/27/26 02:32, Jamin Lin wrote: > > Hi Cédric > > > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 03/14] hw/block/m25p80: Rename w25q32dw to > >> w25q33pw > >> > >> On 10/15/26 07:56, Jamin Lin wrote: > >>> The W25Q32DW and W25Q33PW use the same JEDEC ID (0xef6016), but > >> have > >>> different part names. Since the JEDEC ID is used to uniquely > >>> identify a flash model in QEMU, both parts cannot be added as > >>> separate entries with the same ID. > >>> > >>> According to Winbond, the W25Q32DW has been end-of-life for many > >>> years and the W25Q33PW is its next-generation replacement. The > >>> W25Q33PW is compatible with the W25Q32DW and uses the same JEDEC > ID. > >>> > >>> Rename the existing w25q32dw model to w25q33pw to reflect the > >>> currently supported part. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Jamin Lin <[email protected]> > >>> --- > >>> hw/block/m25p80.c | 2 +- > >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/hw/block/m25p80.c b/hw/block/m25p80.c index > >>> 545e0b5728..e88efd913b 100644 > >>> --- a/hw/block/m25p80.c > >>> +++ b/hw/block/m25p80.c > >>> @@ -353,7 +353,7 @@ static const FlashPartInfo known_devices[] = { > >>> { INFO("w25x16", 0xef3015, 0, 64 << 10, 32, > >> ER_4K) }, > >>> { INFO("w25x32", 0xef3016, 0, 64 << 10, 64, > >> ER_4K) }, > >>> { INFO("w25q32", 0xef4016, 0, 64 << 10, 64, > >> ER_4K) }, > >>> - { INFO("w25q32dw", 0xef6016, 0, 64 << 10, 64, > ER_4K) }, > >>> + { INFO("w25q33pw", 0xef6016, 0, 64 << 10, 64, > >> ER_4K) }, > >> > >> > >> Instead please add a new "w25q33pw" device and keep "w25q32dw". > >> > > Thanks for the review and suggestion. > > > > The reason for renaming the device is that both w25q32dw and w25q33pw > use the same JEDEC ID (0xef6016). > > yes. that's fine. See : > > { INFO6("mx25l25635e", 0xc22019, 0xc22019, 64 << 10, 512, > ER_4K | ER_32K), .sfdp_read = m25p80_sfdp_mx25l25635e }, > { INFO6("mx25l25635f", 0xc22019, 0xc22019, 64 << 10, 512, > ER_4K | ER_32K), .sfdp_read = m25p80_sfdp_mx25l25635f }, > > The only way to distinguish the mx25l25635e device from the mx25l25635f is > to read the sfdp table. That's what the kernel does. > > > I can add w25q33pw as a new flash model and keep w25q32dw, so both > models will use the same JEDEC ID. If you have no concerns about this, I will > update the patch accordingly. > > Alternatively, I can drop the rename patch and only add the SFDP table to > w25q32dw, since w25q33pw is compatible with w25q32dw. > > as you wish. But don't drop the w25q32dw please. This would be a user visible > change. > > > Please note that the SFDP table was dumped from a real w25q33pw flash. I > don't have the SFDP table for w25q32dw because this device is old and has > reached end of life. > > Please let me know which approach you prefer. > > The simplest is to add a new "w25q33pw" device with its SFDP table. > Thanks for the suggestion. Will add. Jamin > > Thanks, > > C. > > > > > Thanks, > > Jamin > > > >> Thanks, > >> > >> C. > >> > >>> { INFO("w25x64", 0xef3017, 0, 64 << 10, 128, > >> ER_4K) }, > >>> { INFO("w25q64", 0xef4017, 0, 64 << 10, 128, > >> ER_4K) }, > >>> { INFO("w25q80", 0xef5014, 0, 64 << 10, 16, > >> ER_4K) }, > >
