From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16518 invoked by alias); 8 Jun 2004 19:20:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ecos-discuss-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-discuss-owner@ecos.sourceware.org Received: (qmail 16404 invoked from network); 8 Jun 2004 19:20:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 8 Jun 2004 19:20:10 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i58JKAi7017374 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 15:20:10 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i58JKA010347; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 15:20:10 -0400 Received: from deneb.localdomain (msalter.cipe.redhat.com [10.0.0.36]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i58JK9sw006964; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 15:20:09 -0400 Received: by deneb.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 500) id 422807907B; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 15:20:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Mark Salter To: lgagne@yahoo.com Cc: ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20040608184330.67693.qmail@web50807.mail.yahoo.com> (message from Louis Gagne on Tue, 8 Jun 2004 11:43:30 -0700 (PDT)) References: <20040608184330.67693.qmail@web50807.mail.yahoo.com> Message-Id: <20040608192009.422807907B@deneb.localdomain> Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 19:20:00 -0000 Subject: Re: [ECOS] Problems programming Intel's J3 Stratoflash chip. X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00075.txt.bz2 >>>>> Louis Gagne writes: > Intel has recently bumped up their revision of the > 128Mbit J3 Stratoflash chip (28F128J3). My Redboot > code handled the J3A version just fine, but with the > J3C version I get errors programming it. The error is > 0x92. This error persists even if I unlock the > sectors before trying to program the chip. > Has anyone else run into this issue? If so, were you > able to overcome the problem? How did you resolve it? This should have been fixed in CVS with this (if its the bug I'm thinking of): 2003-10-29 Jonathan Larmour * src/flash_unlock_block.c (flash_unlock_block): test lock bit explicitly - newer flash parts use the reserved bits in the returned data. --Mark -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss