On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 3:03 PM Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? Yes, you are right, I fat-fingered this part while processing the text. Thanks for the careful review ! I will send a V2 patch tomorrow, this time the added list order is fully matching the spec order. -- Vincent > > The rest of the list looks good. > > -- > Jean Delvare > SUSE L3 Support
