[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] m25p80: Fix QIOR/DIOR handling for Winbond
From: |
Cédric Le Goater |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] m25p80: Fix QIOR/DIOR handling for Winbond |
Date: |
Tue, 12 Jul 2016 10:24:19 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.1.0 |
Hello Peter,
On 07/11/2016 08:05 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 7 July 2016 at 14:04, Krzeminski, Marcin (Nokia - PL/Wroclaw)
> <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Cédric Le Goater [mailto:address@hidden
>
>>> On 07/06/2016 02:43 PM, address@hidden wrote:
>>>
>>>> break;
>>>> case MAN_SPANSION:
>>>> s->needed_bytes +=
>>> SPANSION_CONTINUOUS_READ_MODE_CMD_LEN;
>>>> @@ -814,7 +815,8 @@ static void decode_qio_read_cmd(Flash *s)
>>>> /* Dummy cycles modeled with bytes writes instead of bits */
>>>> switch (get_man(s)) {
>>>> case MAN_WINBOND:
>>>> - s->needed_bytes += 8;
>>>> + s->needed_bytes +=
>>> WINBOND_CONTINUOUS_READ_MODE_CMD_LEN;
>>>> + s->needed_bytes += 4;
>>>
>>> but I don't understand the above. I see the address + M7-0 + 2 dummies.
>>>
>> Hello Cedric,
>>
>> This is because the problematic interface in here. Generally you need
>> to send 2 dummy bytes, but this is four clocks in this mode (Fig 24a).
>> I want to send a proposal to change this dummy clock interface
>> after 2.7 will be released, because now it is really confusing and unclear.
>
> Cedric, could you let me know if you're happy with this patch now?
> If you are you can provide a reviewed-by tag and I can apply it to
> target-arm.next...
Yes. It should be fine and Marcin has plans for 2.8 to clarify all that.
Let's move forward :
Reviewed-by: Cédric Le Goater <address@hidden>
Thanks,
C.