On 3/5/19 6:25 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 at 17:21, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> wrote: >> But I'd recommend changing/fixing the sector size during the next dev >> cycle, so we have more time for testing. > > Nobody in the upstream dev community is using or testing this board.
Well I submitted a Avocado test last year: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-10/msg02749.html And I rebase/run it from time to time. > The only way we'll find out if there's a problem with changing the > sector size is to put the change in and get it into a release. > I would vote for just making the change now. I'm happy with this vote, and am sure Markus will be too :) Markus: the last field I wasn't sure about without double checking the code is the @width one. I find it misleading, is that the size of the data bus or the size of the flash words? Answer: this is the size of the words in byte. NOR flash devices can not write less data than their word boundary. The S29PL127J60TFI130 only support 16bit words, so using @width=2 is correct. And the winner is.... ta-da! pflash_cfi02_register(0x0, NULL, "r2d.flash", FLASH_SIZE, dinfo ? blk_by_legacy_dinfo(dinfo) : NULL, - 16 * KiB, FLASH_SIZE >> 16, - 1, 4, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, + 64 * KiB, FLASH_SIZE >> 16 /* will get removed later */, + 1, 2, 0x0001, 0x227e, 0x2220, 0x2200 0x555, 0x2aa, 0); > > thanks > -- PMM Thanks for your support! Phil.
