Spansion SPI parts

[Hoyler, Gernot]

> +       { "s25fl128p0", INFO(0x012018, 0x0300, 256 * 1024,  64, 0) },
> +       { "s25fl128p1", INFO(0x012018, 0x0301,  64 * 1024, 256, 0) },
>        { "s25fl129p0", INFO(0x012018, 0x4d00, 256 * 1024,  64, 0) },
>        { "s25fl129p1", INFO(0x012018, 0x4d01,  64 * 1024, 256, 0) },

> After rereading the datasheets I suspect that I used incorrect
> suffixes for the s25fl129* devices.  Would you mind reviewing these 4
> entries to ensure that they line up with each chip's markings?

You mean the trailing '0' and '1'? Well, the correct OPNs for these devices are s25fl128pxxxxx00, s25fl128pxxxxx01, s25fl129pxxxxx00 and s25fl128pxxxxx01, respectively, where a trailing '00' denotes the 64kB sector devices and a tailing '01' denotes the 256kB sector devices. The laser markings on the packages typically only include the 1st portion of the OPN, e.g. FL128PIF. So, yes, if you want to align the naming scheme with the OPNs then you might change the names to:

        { "s25fl128p-01", INFO(0x012018, 0x0300, 256 * 1024,  64, 0) },
        { "s25fl128p-00", INFO(0x012018, 0x0301,  64 * 1024, 256, 0) },
        { "s25fl129p-01", INFO(0x012018, 0x4d00, 256 * 1024,  64, 0) },
        { "s25fl129p-00", INFO(0x012018, 0x4d01,  64 * 1024, 256, 0) },

On the other side, if you want to align the trailing '0' or '1' with the 5th device ID byte then you can stick with the first proposal.