W dniu 17.03.2016 o 18:39, Peter Crosthwaite pisze:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:03 AM, <marcin.krzemin...@nokia.com> wrote:
>> From: Marcin Krzeminski <marcin.krzemin...@nokia.com>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marcin Krzeminski <marcin.krzemin...@nokia.com>
>> ---
>> hw/block/m25p80.c | 11 +++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/block/m25p80.c b/hw/block/m25p80.c
>> index 2b7d19f..987fe07 100644
>> --- a/hw/block/m25p80.c
>> +++ b/hw/block/m25p80.c
>> @@ -99,6 +99,12 @@ static const FlashPartInfo known_devices[] = {
>>
>> { INFO("at45db081d", 0x1f2500, 0, 64 << 10, 16, ER_4K) },
>>
>> + /* Atmel EEPROMS - it is assumed, that don't care bit in command
>> + * is set to 0. Block protection is not supported.
>> + */
>> + { INFO("at25128a-nonjedec", 0x0, 0, 1, 131072, WR_1) },
>> + { INFO("at25256a-nonjedec", 0x0, 0, 1, 262144, WR_1) },
>> +
>> /* EON -- en25xxx */
>> { INFO("en25f32", 0x1c3116, 0, 64 << 10, 64, ER_4K) },
>> { INFO("en25p32", 0x1c2016, 0, 64 << 10, 64, 0) },
>> @@ -438,6 +444,11 @@ void flash_write8(Flash *s, uint64_t addr, uint8_t data)
>>
>> static inline int get_addr_length(Flash *s)
>> {
>> + /* check if eeprom is in use */
>> + if (s->pi->flags == WR_1) {
>> + return 2;
>> + }
>> +
>
> Neat!
>
> But I think this indicates the flag is incorrectly named. Should be
> renamed to EEPROM or something like.
Yes, EEPROM sound much better. Will be changed in v5.
Thanks,
Marcin
>
>
> Otherwise:
>
> Reviewed-by: Peter Crosthwaite <crosthwaite.pe...@gmail.com>
>
>> switch (s->cmd_in_progress) {
>> case PP4:
>> case READ4:
>> --
>> 2.5.0
>>
>
>
