Reply
Posts: 26
Registered: ‎02-13-2014

AT45DB021E vs AT45DB021D

Hi Everyone,

We have our own EM357 radio module with the external flash 'AT45DB021D'. Seeing that the 'D' revision is becoming scarce, we are considering the 'AT45DB021E'. We swapped in the new flash chip but was not able to successfully do a boot-load. Is any one aware of this issue or have a fix? Or perhaps we are doing something wrong. The 'E' revision is suppose to be backward compatible.

Thanks

Jeff

Posts: 34
Registered: ‎03-07-2014

Re: AT45DB021E vs AT45DB021D

Hi Jeff,

 

Have you tried the driver from the latest EM35x software stack?  Although the part is backwards compatible, the driver needs to recognize the new part number. 

 

Thank you

 

 

Posts: 26
Registered: ‎02-13-2014

Re: AT45DB021E vs AT45DB021D

Spoiler
 

 

Thanks wmpaull,


I downloaded GA5.6.0.0 and am comparing it to 4.7.2 which is what I've previously used. I compiled 5.6.0.0 and am using PB7 to control power to the external flash.

at45db021d.c had a reference to "AT45DB021D" which I changed to "AT45DB021E". The

AT_MANUFACTURER_ID 0x1F is the same for both D and E revisions. I compiled it and will give it a try :-)


static const HalEepromInformationType partInfo = {
  EEPROM_INFO_VERSION,
  0,  // no specific capabilities
  0,  // page erase time (not suported or needed in this driver)
  0,  // part erase time (not suported or needed in this driver)
  DEVICE_PAGE_SZ,  // page size
  DEVICE_SIZE,  // device size
  "AT45DB021E"   <- changed from AT45DB021D. I don't see how it is used in code.
};

 

Trying the latest 5.6.0.0 code base, and changing 'D' to 'E' (although I don't see how it is used in code) I still am not able to boot-load. I have not done tests yet to see if pages are successfully written to the unit. I will perhaps need to get the new EEPROM on to the break out board and start debugging it maybe.

Posts: 202
Registered: ‎02-05-2014

Re: AT45DB021E vs AT45DB021D

Jeff, did you ever get this working?  This should theoretically be a drop-in replacement, although between D and E revs the ownership of these parts got transferred from Atmel to Adesto, so they may have changed something subtle.

--------
The views represented in this post are the independent views of the author and don't necessarily represent the official views of Silicon Labs.
Posts: 26
Registered: ‎02-13-2014

Re: AT45DB021E vs AT45DB021D

Yes,

it is a drop in replacement. Perhaps our Lua script had an issue, but the new flash revision does work.

 

Thanks