spi-nor: maxronix MX25L12835F support

Tudor.Ambarus at microchip.com Tudor.Ambarus at microchip.com
Thu Feb 18 02:56:35 EST 2021

Hi, Zhengxun, Mason,

On 2/18/21 7:45 AM, zhengxunli at mxic.com.tw wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> Hi,
> <Tudor.Ambarus at microchip.com> wrote on 2021/02/16 下午 07:15:33:
>> <Tudor.Ambarus at microchip.com>
>> 2021/02/16 下午 07:15
>> To
>> <michael at walle.cc>, <p.yadav at ti.com>, <ycllin at mxic.com.tw>,
>> <zhengxunli at mxic.com.tw>, <juliensu at mxic.com.tw>,
>> cc
>> <heiko.thiery at gmail.com>, <linux-mtd at lists.infradead.org>
>> Subject
>> Re: spi-nor: maxronix MX25L12835F support
>> Hi, all,
>> +zhengxunli, juliensu & ycllin
>> On 2/16/21 11:48 AM, Michael Walle wrote:
>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you
>> know the content is safe
>>> Am 2021-02-16 10:27, schrieb Pratyush Yadav:
>>>> On 15/02/21 10:53PM, Heiko Thiery wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> I faced an issue with a SPI flash on our board. We use a macronix
>>>>> MX25L12835F [1]. Unfortunately this flash has the same JEDEC ID like
>>>>> the MX25L12805D [2].
>>>>> The newer MX25L12835F has support for dual/quad read mode and RDSFDP
>>>>> while the older doesn't.
>>>>> I thought that I could do a fixup with a device specific
>>>>> post_bfpt_fixups() call but by now this seems not possible. The
> older
>>>>> MX25L12805D has no flags set that allows a call to
>>>>> spi_nor_sfdp_init_params() and implements the fixup.
>>>>> Has anyone an idea how to solve this?
>> Maybe macronix can help with some suggestions on how to differentiate
>> between flashes at runtime.
> In fact, the duplicate ID also caused us trouble. Maybe you can refer to
> our colleagues' patches and add a new ID before the old ID.
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-mtd/patch/1587631123-25474-2-git-send-email-masonccyang@mxic.com.tw/

No, that patch is wrong because mx66l51235l will no longer be
detected. I see that mx66l51235l also supports SECT_4K, as
mx25l51245g does. Do you know why Mason added a new flash ID?
Was it just to get the new flash name? I'll send a patch right
now to correct this.


More information about the linux-mtd mailing list