This is the mail archive of the
ecos-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the eCos project.
RE: Intel FLASH
- From: "Doyle, Patrick" <WPD at dtccom dot com>
- To: "'Gary Thomas'" <gary at mlbassoc dot com>, "Doyle, Patrick" <WPD at dtccom dot com>
- Cc: "'Jani Monoses'" <jani at iv dot ro>, eCos patches <ecos-patches at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 15:09:43 -0400
- Subject: RE: Intel FLASH
> The CFI information is supposed to be correct, so use it.
My concern, not knowing the history of CFI, is that there could be newer
information in the CFI description that I have for the W18 part that wasn't
present when you wrote the original driver. I see that bytes 0x31-0x34
contain "Erase Block Region 2" information. If older devices do not
guarantee that these bytes contain zeros, then the newer driver will break
on those devices.
Personally, I'm inclined to just assume that Intel specified that those
bytes would be zero from the beginning, and, if my assumption proves false,
add an #ifdef to support the older parts later, if needed.
>
> > What the heck does "strata" mean anyway?
>
> StrataFlash is just what Intel calls their advanced parts.
>
Ahh, "strata" means advanced.
Umm, so what's so "advanced" about these parts anyway? Never mind, don't
bother answering that. :-)
--wpd