- spi_prettyprint_status_register_default_welwip():
It just prettyprints the plain hex value and the welwip bits.
- spi_prettyprint_status_register_default_bp4():
Prints the hex value, welwip, bp0-5 and srwd bits.
- spi_disable_blockprotect_bp2_srwd(),
- spi_disable_blockprotect_bp3_srwd() and
spi_disable_blockprotect_bp4_srwd():
Three new common block unprotection functions for the frequent
cases where there is a status register lock bit at bit #7 and some
block protection bits at bits #2-#4, #2-#5 and #2-#6 respectively.
Corresponding to flashrom svn r1681.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner@alumni.tuwien.ac.at>
Acked-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner@alumni.tuwien.ac.at>
I broke unlocking them correctly in r1635 while refactoring (NB: the
commit log including the overly selfconfident statement about the
"bug in spi_disable_blockprotect_at25df()").
Affected chips have per sector protection bits and the write protection bits
in the status register do indicate if none, some or all sectors are protected.
It is possible to globally (un)lock all sectors at once but in a way that was
not anticipated when refactoring the spi25 unlocking functions into
spi_disable_blockprotect_generic(). To globally unprotect not only the
protection bits (2 and 3) have 0 to be written to them but also bits 4 and 5
which normally would not be touched by spi_disable_blockprotect_generic().
Some of the chips also support a permanent lockdown with fuses which we
do not handle yet.
To fix this without copying the whole method I introduce another mask
parameter to spi_disable_blockprotect_generic() namely unprotect_mask.
See verbose comments inline for details.
Also, prettyprint the status register after trying to disable the block
protection fails.
Corresponding to flashrom svn r1679.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner@alumni.tuwien.ac.at>
Tested-by: Chi Zhang <zhangchi866@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner@alumni.tuwien.ac.at>
This patch adds support for
- Pm25LD256C
- Pm25LD512(C)
- Pm25LD010(C)
- Pm25LD020(C)
- Pm25LD040(C)
These seem to be the successors of the Pm25LV series.
The main difference seems to be the dual I/O and additional erase opcodes.
Some support an additional, complex locking register (maybe all of the
above, but available datahsheets do not indicate it for all).
The Pm25LD512C was tested by Chi Zhang:
http://paste.flashrom.org/view.php?id=1579
Corresponding to flashrom svn r1671.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner@alumni.tuwien.ac.at>
Acked-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner@alumni.tuwien.ac.at>
This adds support for the following chips:
- AT25F512, AT25F512A, AT25F512B
- AT25F1024, AT25F1024A
- AT25F2048
- AT25F4096
Besides the definitions of the the chips in flashchips.c this includes
- a dedicated probing method (probe_spi_at25f)
- pretty printing methods (spi_prettyprint_status_register_at25f*), and
- unlocking methods (spi_disable_blockprotect_at25f*)
Corresponding to flashrom svn r1637.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner@alumni.tuwien.ac.at>
Acked-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner@alumni.tuwien.ac.at>
This includes:
Bottom boot block:
* 16Mb/2MB:
QB25F160S33B8, QB25F016S33B8, QH25F160S33B8, QH25F016S33B8
* 32Mb/4MB:
QB25F320S33B8, QH25F320S33B8
* 64Mb/8MB:
QB25F640S33B8, QH25F640S33B8
Top boot block:
* 16Mb/2MB:
QB25F160S33T8, QB25F016S33T8, QH25F160S33T8, QH25F016S33T8
* 32Mb/4MB:
QB25F320S33T8, QH25F320S33T8
* 64Mb/8MB:
QB25F640S33T8, QH25F640S33T8
At least some seem to be marketed by other vendors (too?) but also with
Intel's vendor ID.
Besides a 0xC7 chip erase and a 0xD8 uniform 64kB block erase they
support also erasing the top/bottom 8 8kB blocks with opcode 0x40.
But since this command fails for all addresses outside those ranges,
it is not easily implemented with flashrom's current code base and
hence left out.
Corresponding to flashrom svn r1636.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner@alumni.tuwien.ac.at>
Acked-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner@alumni.tuwien.ac.at>
This does not only remove a huge pile of duplicate code, it does
also fix a bug in spi_disable_blockprotect_at25df(), which is also
a good example why duplicated code is a bad idea.
Corresponding to flashrom svn r1635.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner@alumni.tuwien.ac.at>
Acked-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner@alumni.tuwien.ac.at>
- Move all functions related to SPI status registers to a new file
spi25_statusreg.c. This includes the generic as well as the
SST-specific functions from spi25.c and the chip-specific functions
from a25.c and at25.c.
- introduce helper functions
* spi_prettyprint_status_register_hex()
* spi_prettyprint_status_register_bpl()
* spi_prettyprint_status_register_plain()
Use the latter on every compatible flash chip that has no better printlock
function set and get rid of the implicit pretty printing in the SPI probing
functions.
- remove
* spi_prettyprint_status_register_common()
* spi_prettyprint_status_register_amic_a25lq032() because it can be fully
substituted with spi_prettyprint_status_register_amic_a25l032().
* spi_prettyprint_status_register() (old switch, no longer needed)
- promote and export
* spi_prettyprint_status_register_amic_a25l05p() as spi_prettyprint_status_register_default_bp1().
* spi_prettyprint_status_register_amic_a25l40p() as spi_prettyprint_status_register_default_bp2().
* spi_prettyprint_status_register_st_m25p() as spi_prettyprint_status_register_default_bp3().
- add #define TEST_BAD_REW and use it for a number of Atmel chips which
had only TEST_BAD_READ set even though they dont have erasers or a write
function set.
Corresponding to flashrom svn r1634.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner@alumni.tuwien.ac.at>
Acked-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner@alumni.tuwien.ac.at>
