On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 at 07:00, Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 7/1/24 6:08 PM, Erez wrote: > > On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 at 12:15, Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 7/1/24 10:46 AM, Erez wrote: > >>> When using mx25l12805d, we do not read SFDP. > >>> As it uses the no-SFDP flags. > >>> When using mx25l12833f hardware with mx25l12805d driver, it did not > >>> try to read the SFDP. > >>> Yet mx25l12833f does have SFDP, when I remove the no-SFDP flags, the > >>> driver fetch the SFDP. > >>> > >>> Secondly SFDP does not contain OTP information. > >>> > >>> mx25l12805d has two OTP regions of 128 KiB and 384 KiB (yes asymmetric). > >>> While mx25l12833f has two OTP regions of 512 KiB. > >>> > >>> How do we handle it? > >> > >> You would first try to parse SFDP and initialize the flash based on > >> SFDP. If there's no SFDP then you fallback to the flags declared at > >> flash declaration. Esben had a try recently, see [1]. I don't know if > >> there's any progress in that direction. > >> > >> Also, you haven't mentioned anything about the testing. Do you have the > >> flash? > >> > >> [1] > >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mtd/20240603-macronix-mx25l3205d-fixups-v2-0-ff98da26835c@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > Looking at "mtd: spi-nor: macronix: workaround for device id re-use" > > I guess it can be applied to all Macronix devices. > > No, no, we're going to do it individually just where it's needed. > Issuing unsupported commands is not that great. Would be nice if we could ask Macronix directly. Looking on their web site and reading some spec. and status reports. Using the IDs with 'no_sfdp_flags' in drivers/mtd/spi-nor/macronix.c I did not search for new chips reusing IDs of chips at end of life. But we found 3 already: MX25U51245G appears in the table with the same ID as MX66U51235F. Esben Haabendal found MX25L3233F which reuses MX25L3205D ID. And I found MX25L12833F reuses MX25L12805D ID. Chips that are not in end of life do support SFDP, at least the new versions of the chips according to their spec. It seems quite systematic. By the way, the chip MX25L2005A part number is 'MX25L2005' without the 'A'. We can support Macronix chips that are not in the table, just by reading the SFDP. In that case we can name them like "mx-szNN". The table below uses fixed width characters. ID Part. Size Status SFDP status according to spec. New chip with SFDP for EOL c22012 MX25L2005(A) SZ_256K = 2Mb EOL MX25L2006E c22532 MX25U2033E SZ_256K = 2Mb EOL c22013 MX25L4005A SZ_512K = 4Mb EOL c22533 MX25U4035 SZ_512K = 4Mb EOL c22534 MX25U8035 SZ_1M = 8Mb EOL c22016 MX25L3205D SZ_4M = 32Mb EOL MX25L3233F c29e16 MX25L3255E SZ_4M = 32Mb EOL c22017 MX25L6405D SZ_8M = 64Mb EOL c22018 MX25L12805D SZ_16M = 128Mb EOL MX25L12833F c22538 MX25U12835F SZ_16M = 128Mb EOL c2253a MX66U51235F SZ_64M = 512Mb EOL MX25U51245G c22010 MX25L512E SZ_64K = 512Kb NO_REC Have-SFDP! c22015 MX25L1606E SZ_2M = 16Mb NO_REC Have-SFDP! c22536 MX25U3235F SZ_4M = 32Mb NO_REC Have-SFDP! c22816 MX25R3235F SZ_4M = 32Mb NO_REC Have-SFDP! c22537 MX25U6435F SZ_8M = 64Mb NO_REC Have-SFDP! c22019 MX25L25635E SZ_32M = 256Mb NO_REC Have-SFDP! c22539 MX25U25635F SZ_32M = 256Mb NO_REC Have-SFDP! c2201a MX66L51235F SZ_64M = 512Mb NO_REC Have-SFDP! c2261b MX66L1G55G SZ_128M = 1Gb NO_REC Spec. is not public c22314 MX25V8035F SZ_1M = 8Mb PROD Have-SFDP! c22815 MX25R1635F SZ_2M = 16Mb PROD Have-SFDP! c2201b MX66L1G45G SZ_128M = 1Gb PROD Have-SFDP! c2253c MX66U2G45G SZ_256M = 2Gb PROD Have-SFDP! c2253a MX25U51245G SZ_64M = 512Mb PROD Have-SFDP! EOL End of Life PROD Normal Production NO_REC Not recommend for new design Erez > > > Adding something like the following in macronix_nor_default_init(): > > > > if (info>no_sfdp_flags) > > info>no_sfdp_flags |= SPI_NOR_TRY_SFDP > > > > It seems Macronix did many reuse of IDs. > > I saw it with "mx25l12833f" reusing "mx25l12805d". > > And Esben saw it with MX25L3233F reusing "MX25L3205D". > > > > The only thing I notice is the flash using the same size. > > A sort of "backward" compatible. > > > > Erez
