[PATCH] flashrom: Refactor HT-1000 GPIO setting

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

Refactor HT-1000 GPIO setting to use sio_mask. Although the HT-1000
GPIOs are not SuperIO related, the share the same index/data register
access method.

Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger

Index: flashrom-ht1000_gpio_refactor/board_enable.c
===================================================================
--- flashrom-ht1000_gpio_refactor/board_enable.c	(Revision 547)
+++ flashrom-ht1000_gpio_refactor/board_enable.c	(Arbeitskopie)
@@ -365,25 +365,20 @@

static int board_ibm_x3455(const char *name)
 {
-	uint8_t byte;
-
    /* Set GPIO lines in the Broadcom HT-1000 southbridge. */
-	OUTB(0x45, 0xcd6);
-	byte = INB(0xcd7);
-	OUTB(byte | 0x20, 0xcd7);
+	/* It's not a superio but it uses the same index/data port method. */
+	sio_mask(0xcd6, 0x45, 0x20, 0x20);

return 0;
 }

static int board_hp_dl145_g3_enable(const char *name)
 {
-	uint8_t byte;
-
    /* Set GPIO lines in the Broadcom HT-1000 southbridge. */
-	OUTB(0x44, 0xcd6);	/* GPIO 0 reg from PM regs */
-	byte = INB(0xcd7);
+	/* GPIO 0 reg from PM regs */
    /* Set GPIO 2 and 5 high, connected to flash WP# and TBL# pins. */
-	OUTB(byte | 0x24, 0xcd7);
+	/* It's not a superio but it uses the same index/data port method. */
+	sio_mask(0xcd6, 0x44, 0x24, 0x24);

return 0;
 }

[ron minnich]

Has this been tested anywhere?

I get a little worried about changes like this, which look fine in the
abstract, unless they are tested. It "should" work, it looks fine to
me, but ...

ron

[Uwe Hermann]

On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 06:58:42PM -0700, ron minnich wrote:
> Has this been tested anywhere?
>
> I get a little worried about changes like this, which look fine in the
> abstract, unless they are tested. It "should" work, it looks fine to
> me, but ...

Yeah, should work. Sure, testing would be nice also, but I think it's ok
to commit this.

Acked-by: Uwe Hermann

Uwe.

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

Hi Mondrian,

could you test if flashrom r561 still works for you? Thanks!

On 01.06.2009 03:08, Uwe Hermann wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 06:58:42PM -0700, ron minnich wrote:
> > Has this been tested anywhere?
> >
> > I get a little worried about changes like this, which look fine in the
> > abstract, unless they are tested. It "should" work, it looks fine to
> > me, but ...
>
> Yeah, should work. Sure, testing would be nice also, but I think it's ok
> to commit this.
>
> Acked-by: Uwe Hermann

Thanks, committed in r561.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel