...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of
Michael Schwingen
Sent: 31. december 2009 10:40
Cc: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] Adding support for SST 39VF6401B
external flash
David Brownell wrote:
> FWIW that Sparkun forum is only moderately obscure.
> It's the
On Thursday 31 December 2009, Michael Schwingen wrote:
> David Brownell wrote:
> > FWIW that Sparkun forum is only moderately obscure.
> > It's the one Olimex points its customers to, and we
> > mention it as a "User's Forum" in our documentation.
>
> Interesting - I did not even know about it unti
David Brownell wrote:
> FWIW that Sparkun forum is only moderately obscure.
> It's the one Olimex points its customers to, and we
> mention it as a "User's Forum" in our documentation.
>
Interesting - I did not even know about it until this thread.
Do we really want to point users to a forum wh
Flemming Futtrup wrote:
> I used "Beyond Compare to compare the SST39VF16/32/64-01 and the
> 39VF640XB specs, and besides H vs 555H and 2AAAH vs 2AAH differences
> I also noticed another difference between the 39VF and 39VFB.
>
> Taken from the SST 39VF6401B spec:
>
> "This is that some
Rolf Meeser wrote:
>> flash bank cfi 0x8000 0x80 2 2 $_TARGETNAME jedec_probe
>>
>
> I'm surprised that this works! :-)
> As far as I understand, the "jedec_probe" option selects the wrong unlock
> addresses for this flash. The option is required for the non-B versions of
> the SST f
On Wednesday 30 December 2009, Flemming Futtrup wrote:
> I will stop referring to the "obscure forum":-)
FWIW that Sparkun forum is only moderately obscure.
It's the one Olimex points its customers to, and we
mention it as a "User's Forum" in our documentation.
However, it *is* something that's n
Hi Flemming,
--- Flemming Futtrup schrieb am Mi, 30.12.2009:
> Including this:
> mww 0xFFE08200 0x0081
>
> Which I believe to be what you mention?
>
Yes. And it's ok! (The buffer is disabled)
> flash bank cfi 0x8000 0x80 2 2 $_TARGETNAME jedec_probe
I'm surprised that this
trup; openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] Adding support for SST 39VF6401B
external flash
Flemming Futtrup wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> Thanks for all the comments Good to know that I might be on the track.
>
> Here are my comments/questions:
>
Flemming Futtrup wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> Thanks for all the comments Good to know that I might be on the track.
>
> Here are my comments/questions:
>
>> So something goes wrong when running the programming algorithm on the
>>
> target. One possible area would be the command-completion chec
Flemming Futtrup wrote:
>
> The " Error: protect: cfi primary command set 2 unsupported" message only
> appears when I run the protect command in the script.
>
That is OK - AMD (02) commandset flashs usually do not have per-sector
protection, so the protect/unprotect operation
...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Michael
Schwingen
Sent: 30. december 2009 16:57
To: Openocd-Dev
Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] Adding support for SST 39VF6401B external
flash
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> So are you thinking about creating a patch for the other cases than the
> one that is already hand
**
The mww commands are not logged?
Does this make any sense? Or is the error hidden somewhere in the log?
Regards Flemming
-Original Message-
From: Rolf Meeser [mailto:rolfm_...@yahoo.de]
Sent: 30. december 2009 13:37
To: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de; Flemming Futtrup
sage-
From: Michael Schwingen [mailto:rincew...@discworld.dascon.de]
Sent: 30. december 2009 13:47
To: Flemming Futtrup; openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] Adding support for SST 39VF6401B
external flash
Flemming Futtrup wrote:
> Info : Flash Manufacturer/Device: 0x
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> So are you thinking about creating a patch for the other cases than the
> one that is already handled in OpenOCD?
>
No. I think it is best to handle these SST flashs as non-CFI, because I
am not sure how to sanitize the CFI data from these parts in a uniform way.
cu
Mich
> Exactly. I tried a workaround some time ago, but the CFI data in the SST
> flashs was not really useable.
So are you thinking about creating a patch for the other cases than the
one that is already handled in OpenOCD?
--
Øyvind Harboe
US toll free 1-866-980-3434 / International +47 51 63 25 0
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> Does it have anything to do with this?
>
> src/flash/nor/cfi.c:
>
>
> /* enter CFI query mode
>* according to JEDEC Standard No. 68.01,
>* a single bus sequence with address = 0x55, data = 0x98
> should put
>* the
> However, the datasheet talks about a three-byte command to enter CFI
> mode, which is in conflict with the CFI spec. I remember some older SST
> flashs had the same problem (and when using the 3-byte sequence, the CFI
> tables were present, but broken).
>
> If the 39VF6401B behaves like that, it
Flemming Futtrup wrote:
> Info : Flash Manufacturer/Device: 0x00bf 0x236d
>
> Error: Could not probe bank: no QRY
>
> Try workaround w/0x555 instead of 0x55 to get QRY.
>
> Error: Could not probe bank: no QRY
>
> Error: auto_probe failed -900
>
>
>
> At this point I assumed that the concerned Flash
Hi Flemming,
--- Flemming Futtrup schrieb am Mi, 30.12.2009:
> I have run into trouble with a new board holding the SST
> 39VF6401B external flash.
>
>
> TAP: lpc2468.cpu (enabled)
>
Make sure the buffering is disabled in EMCStaticConfig0 of the LPC2468 (board
config file?).
If enabled,
Hi All,
I have run into trouble with a new board holding the SST 39VF6401B external
flash.
I am working with WinXP and the 0.3.1 installer from Mr. Chopin:
Trying to flash with the OPenOCD I get this error:
target state: halted
target halted in ARM state due to debug-request, current
20 matches
Mail list logo
