Flashrom support for ST M50FLW040A/B

[Claus Gindhart]

Hi,

my tests showed, that these chips wont work with the jedec.c driver 
(though these chips  flashchips.c these device types are assigned to jedec.c).

I have support for the M50FLW040A running in my office. 
Compared to jedec.c i had to modify the erase and write algorythms, and 
additionally i had to implement an unlocking functionality, because these 
devices have a locking mechanism inside.

I would propose, that support for the M50FLWxxx types
(M50FLW040A,M50FLW080A,M50FLW040B,M50FLW080B) should be implemented in a 
separate module, named m50flw0x0x.c.

If there is an agreement, i would provide this module. However, i can only 
verify this functionality with the M50FLW040A, but i would mention this fact 
in the comments.

Any objections, proposals ?

[Peter Stuge]

Hallo Claus,

On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 08:03:40AM +0200, Claus Gindhart wrote:
> I would propose, that support for the M50FLWxxx types
> (M50FLW040A,M50FLW080A,M50FLW040B,M50FLW080B) should be
> implemented in a separate module, named m50flw0x0x.c.

Sounds good.
> If there is an agreement, i would provide this module.

Great!
> However, i can only verify this functionality with the M50FLW040A,
> but i would mention this fact in the comments.

That's fine. If the same code is supposed to work with more chips
then don't let lack of testing stop you from adding the chip entries
in flashchips.c.
> The information contained in this document is CONFIDENTIAL and
> property of Kontron.

Please discuss this text with your employer. I think there can be a
legal problem with adding claimed confidential source code to
coreboot. Yes, there is the Signed-off-by, which implicitly states
that the code is in fact not confidential, but since both signoff and
this text is part of the same email message I don't think it will be
possible to say that one has priority over the other.

(Plus, it is a little strange to tell everyone that you send
confidential information in clear text to the internet.)

//Peter