Dear Mike Frysinger, > On Thursday, August 26, 2010 16:00:50 Reinhard Meyer wrote: > interesting, but what if we push it further. something like this (untested): That code does not address the following issues to complete extend:
1. JEDEC conformant that have ID in first byte 2. JEDEC conformant that have ID in later byte 3. non JEDEC conformant or those that do not honor the read-id command and thus present 0xff _if_ the MISO line is pulled up The question that remains is if any ID can be assigned twice in different positions and them meaning different manufacturers? 7f 7f 7f 7f 7f 7f c2 = ramtron 7f 7f 7f c2 = some other manufacturer? Anyway my patch V2 provides a solution with minimum changes to the original driver. If more devices with the 7f code are going to show up, the same method as with 0xff can be applied. Reinhard _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
