Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] dt-bindings: mtd: macronix,mx25l12833f: add SPI-NOR chip

From: Erez
Date: Thu Jul 11 2024 - 14:58:49 EST


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@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Erez <erezgeva2@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 3 Jul 2024 at 09:12, Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On 7/3/24 12:16 AM, Erez wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 at 07:00, Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@xxxxxxxxxx> 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