On Wed, 3 Jul 2024 at 09:12, Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 7/3/24 12:16 AM, Erez wrote: > > 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. > > we did. They said it's not ideal, but it's okay. > > > > 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. > > is there an extension ID that differentiate the two? > > > Esben Haabendal found MX25L3233F which reuses MX25L3205D ID. > > And I found MX25L12833F reuses MX25L12805D ID. > > Yes. And we already have a plan for these. We need someone that cares > about them to implement it. > > > 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. > > > > maybe I check the public spec of all chips, but one, which are in the Macronix driver table and are still in production. They all support SFDP. I do not understand the "maybe". As for the chips in end of life, we found 3 new chips that reuse the ID, we can find the rest. > > > By the way, the chip MX25L2005A part number is 'MX25L2005' without the 'A'. > > feel free to propose a patch > > > > > 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". > > We don't care about the flash name. Agree. > > If all the flash settings that we care about can be discovered by SFDP > then one won't need to declare a flash entry at all, and instead rely on > the driver to setup the flash settings solely based on the SFDP tables. > See spi-nor-generic handling. Excellent feature! > > > > > 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 > > > > > > not sure what you want me to do with these. That we can read SFDP for all chips from Macronix. Only old chips before 2010 do not have SFDP. Erez > > Cheers, > ta
