On 10/23/24 4:14 PM, Abbarapu, Venkatesh wrote:
Hi,
-----Original Message-----
From: Marek Vasut <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2024 6:15 PM
To: Abbarapu, Venkatesh <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Cc: Andre Przywara <[email protected]>; Ashok Reddy Soma
<[email protected]>; Jagan Teki <[email protected]>;
Michael Walle <[email protected]>; Simek, Michal <[email protected]>;
Patrice Chotard <[email protected]>; Patrick Delaunay
<[email protected]>; Pratyush Yadav <[email protected]>; Quentin
Schulz <[email protected]>; Sean Anderson <[email protected]>;
Simon Glass <[email protected]>; Takahiro Kuwano
<[email protected]>; Tom Rini <[email protected]>; Tudor
Ambarus <[email protected]>; uboot-stm32@st-md-
mailman.stormreply.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Revert "spi: zynq_qspi: Add parallel memories support
in
QSPI driver"
On 10/23/24 11:07 AM, Abbarapu, Venkatesh wrote:
Hi,
Tested with the non-stacked default single configuration on ZynqMP zcu102 board
and didn’t see any issue.
ZynqMP> sf probe 0 0 0
SF: Detected mt25qu512a with page size 256 Bytes, erase size 64 KiB,
total 64 MiB
ZynqMP> sf erase 0x0 0x4000000;mw.b 0x8000 aabbccdd 0x4000000;sf write
ZynqMP> 0x8000 0x0 0x4000000;mw.b 0x8008000 0x0 0x4000000;sf read
ZynqMP> 0x8008000 0x0 0x4000000;cmp.b 0x8000 0x8008000 0x4000000
SF: 67108864 bytes @ 0x0 Erased: OK
device 0 whole chip
SF: 67108864 bytes @ 0x0 Written: OK
device 0 whole chip
SF: 67108864 bytes @ 0x0 Read: OK
Total of 67108864 byte(s) were the same
Thanks
Venkatesh
-----Original Message-----
From: Marek Vasut <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2024 2:12 PM
To: Abbarapu, Venkatesh <[email protected]>; Marek Vasut
<[email protected]>; [email protected]
Cc: Andre Przywara <[email protected]>; Ashok Reddy Soma
<[email protected]>; Jagan Teki <[email protected]>;
Michael Walle <[email protected]>; Simek, Michal
<[email protected]>; Patrice Chotard
<[email protected]>; Patrick Delaunay
<[email protected]>; Pratyush Yadav <[email protected]>;
Quentin Schulz <[email protected]>; Sean Anderson
<[email protected]>; Simon Glass <[email protected]>; Takahiro Kuwano
<[email protected]>; Tom Rini <[email protected]>; Tudor
Ambarus <[email protected]>; uboot-stm32@st-md-
mailman.stormreply.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Revert "spi: zynq_qspi: Add parallel
memories support in QSPI driver"
On 10/23/24 5:18 AM, Abbarapu, Venkatesh wrote:
Hi Marek,
There was some issue and fix is sent
https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20241018082644.22495-1-venkatesh.abba
ra
[email protected]/T/#u
Is this one fix or three fixes for three different issues ?
This seems to fix READ errors, which is apparently another error
introduced by this stuff. In my case, plain and simply 'sf probe ; sf
update' combination with single non- stacked SPI NOR does not work. Was such
a simple configuration ever tested ?
Not sure we need to revert whole parallel/stacked support?
Please stop top-posting.
You ran completely different test on completely different chip.
Stop top posting.
Sorry for top posting
Will try to get the spansion flash part and try the below tests.
At this point tried testing on different board with different flash part.
Zynq> sf probe 0 0 0
SF: Detected mx66l1g45g with page size 256 Bytes, erase size 64 KiB, total 128
MiB
Zynq> sf update 0x4000000 0 0x160000
device 0 offset 0x0, size 0x160000
1441792 bytes written, 0 bytes skipped in 5.735s, speed 257435 B/s
Zynq> sf erase 0x0 0x4000000;mw.b 0x8000 aabbccdd 0x4000000;sf write 0x8000 0x0
0x4000000;mw.b 0x8008000 0x0 0x4000000;sf read 0x8008000 0x0 0x4000000;cmp.b
0x8000 0x8008000 0x4000000
SF: 67108864 bytes @ 0x0 Erased: OK
device 0 offset 0x0, size 0x4000000
SF: 67108864 bytes @ 0x0 Written: OK
device 0 offset 0x0, size 0x4000000
SF: 67108864 bytes @ 0x0 Read: OK
Total of 67108864 byte(s) were the same
Commit message reads:
"
this no longer works:
=> sf probe && sf update 0x50000000 0 0x160000
SF: Detected s25fs512s with page size 256 Bytes, erase size 256 KiB,
total 64 MiB
device 0 offset 0x0, size 0x160000
SPI flash failed in read step
"
You ran completely different test on completely different chip.
The test is "sf probe && sf update 0x50000000 0 0x160000" , did you ever
test "sf update" ?
