| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CANeKEMNJ3_ET5pQo2wg7_GSLX+vE+dqW-CV=v2DnG10xcgSdzQ@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 20:57:57 +0200 From: Erez <erezgeva2@...il.com> To: Esben Haabendal <esben@...nix.com> Cc: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>, Jaime Liao <jaimeliao@...c.com.tw>, leoyu@...c.com.tw, Alvin Zhou <alvinzhou@...c.com.tw>, Julien Su <juliensu@...c.com.tw>, Erez Geva <erezgeva@...ime.org>, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@...nel.org>, Michael Walle <mwalle@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] dt-bindings: mtd: macronix,mx25l12833f: add SPI-NOR chip Yes, I think we should. Reading the specification provided publicly by Macronix. For all the JEDEC IDs with the no SFDP flag in drivers/mtd/spi-nor/macronix.c All of them have a new version or a new chip with the same JEDEC ID that supports SFDP. There are 2 chips that Macronix does not provide spec. in public. I can ask Macronix technical support on these 2 chips. Erez "RDID" "Part." "Size" "Status" "SFDP status according to spec. or new chip replacing with same RDID and SFDP supported according to spec." c22012 MX25L2005(A) SZ_256K = 2Mb EOL MX25L2006E c22013 MX25L4005A SZ_512K = 4Mb EOL MX25L4006E c22533 MX25U4035 SZ_512K = 4Mb EOL MX25U4033E c22534 MX25U8035 SZ_1M = 8Mb EOL MX25U8033E c22016 MX25L3205D SZ_4M = 32Mb EOL MX25L3233F c22017 MX25L6405D SZ_8M = 64Mb EOL MX25L6406E / MX25L6433F c22018 MX25L12805D SZ_16M = 128Mb EOL MX25L12833F c22538 MX25U12835F SZ_16M = 128Mb EOL MX25U12832F c2253a MX66U51235F SZ_64M = 512Mb EOL MX25U51245G c22532 MX25U2033E SZ_256K = 2Mb EOL Have-SFDP! 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! c2253a MX25U51245G SZ_64M = 512Mb PROD Have-SFDP! 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! c2261b MX66L1G55G SZ_128M = 1Gb NO_REC Spec. is not public c29e16 MX25L3255E SZ_4M = 32Mb PROD Spec. is not public EOL End of Life PROD Production NO_REC Not recommend On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 at 16:34, Esben Haabendal <esben@...nix.com> wrote: > > Erez <erezgeva2@...il.com> writes: > > > On Wed, 3 Jul 2024 at 09:12, Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org> wrote: > >> On 7/3/24 12:16 AM, Erez wrote: > >>> On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 at 07:00, Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> 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. > > So, should we try and identify new chips (with SFDP) that re-use the ID of all the > above mentioned EOL chips that does not have SFDP? > > As I read the communication from Macronix, then we should expect new > chips re-using the ID for all of them. It is just a matter of digging. > > /Esben
Powered by blists - more mailing lists