Hi Vincent, Peter, On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 09:39:22 +0100, Vincent Palatin wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 8:54 AM Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2018-11-15 08:23, Vincent Palatin wrote: > > > Add all the JEDEC-registered manufacturer names added since JEP106AQ. > > > > This is not a complete description of the change. That's good enough as far as I'm concerned. > > > Signed-off-by: Vincent Palatin <vpalatin@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > eeprom/decode-dimms | 82 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > > > 1 file changed, 80 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/eeprom/decode-dimms b/eeprom/decode-dimms > > > index ede3ec6..9ead960 100755 > > > --- a/eeprom/decode-dimms > > > +++ b/eeprom/decode-dimms > > > @@ -336,8 +336,86 @@ $revision =~ s/ \([^()]*\)//; > > > "AP Memory", "Douqi Technology", "Etron Technology Inc.", > > > "Indie Semiconductor", "Socionext Inc.", "HGST", "EVGA", > > > "Audience Inc.", "EpicGear", "Vitesse Enterprise Co.", > > > - "Foxtronn International Corporation", "Bretelon Inc.", > > > - "Zbit Semiconductor Inc."] > > > + "Foxtronn International Corporation", "Bretelon Inc.", "Graphcore", "Eoplex Inc", > > > > *snip* > > > > > + "Zbit Semiconductor Inc", "Shenzhen Technology Co Ltd", "Signalchip", > > > > "Zbit Semiconductor Inc" has moved (and lost a dot), what's up with that? > > This is what the JEDEC JEP106AX document says: > """ > The following numbers are all in bank 10: > [...] > 94 Zbit Semiconductor Inc > [...] > """ > > While where it was in bank 9 for current code, there is definitely > Graphcore at index 95: > """ > 92 Vitesse Enterprise Co > 93 Foxtronn International Corporation > 94 Bretelon Inc > 95 Graphcore > """ Yes, "Zbit Semiconductor Inc" moved from bank 9 to bank 10 (and lost its dot) somewhere between JEP106AQ and JEP106AX. That's confusing but the patch is correct. > Looking at it, the change is not document in the JEP Annex but another > project (OpenOCD) did a similar fixup: > https://repo.or.cz/openocd.git/commitdiff/063253fa89b2d48104b43783c03ff7161c5d1a5a > Maybe there was a mistake in a previous revision of the JEP106 (but > strangely it was silently fixed) or everybody copied the content from > a broken source. > > There is no dot in the Standard document, I don't know what the local > convention is in this project. I don't know either ;-) I don't think it really matters to be honest, so we can just take what the JEDEC specification has. I'm more worried by the fact that some names are not listed in the same order in the patch as in the specification. For bank 9, names 104-109 ("Boya ..." to "Guangzhou Si Nuo ...") appear in the patch after "Starsway Technology Limited" which is supposed to be number 126 (and in a different order too). Vincent, can you please double check? The rest of the list looks good. -- Jean Delvare SUSE L3 Support
