SST 39VF1601

[Jamie Guinan]

On Mon, 5 Apr 2004, Jamie Guinan wrote:
...
> which leaves the values as follows,
> 
>   cfi->addr_unlock1 = 0xaaaa 
>   cfi->addr_unlock2 = 0x5554
> 
> Then later in jedec_match() it fails this test,
> 
> 	DEBUG( MTD_DEBUG_LEVEL3, "MTD %s(): check unlock addrs 0x%.4x 0x%.4x\n",
> 	       __func__, cfi->addr_unlock1, cfi->addr_unlock2 );
> 	if ( MTD_UADDR_UNNECESSARY != uaddr && MTD_UADDR_DONT_CARE != uaddr
> 	     && ( unlock_addrs[uaddr].addr1 != cfi->addr_unlock1
> 		  || unlock_addrs[uaddr].addr2 != cfi->addr_unlock2 ) ) {
> 		DEBUG( MTD_DEBUG_LEVEL3,
> 		       "MTD %s(): 0x%.4x 0x%.4x did not match\n",
> 		       __func__,
> 		       unlock_addrs[uaddr].addr1,
> 		       unlock_addrs[uaddr].addr2 );
> 		goto match_done;
> 	}
> 
> I could try adding a new enum uaddr MTD_UADDR_0x5554_0xAAAA and
> corresponding unlock_addrs[] entry, if that doesn't sound
> unreasonable.

Erm, rather, MTD_UADDR_0xAAAA_0x5554.

-Jamie