[LinuxBIOS] flash_and_burn fixes.

[Stefan Reinauer]

Hi,

flash_and_burn does not compile in gcc 4 anymore since it comes
with -Werror. This makes sense since it is touching a very sensitive
part of a system :-)

Since gcc 4 warns a lot more about signed/unsigned pointer confusion
I changed major parts of flash_and_burn to use unsigned pointers only.
We are coping with data, so signedness is not interesting in the code.
In fact it might rather hurt.

I'll apply the patch to the repository shortly, when someone signs it
off.

Other questions: 
 - Can we drop flash_on? The code seems included in flash_rom and it
   only works on old sis stuff anyways. We will not drop functionality 
   by dropping this extra binary.

- Should we rename the utility to flash_and_burn or should we rename
   the directory to flash_rom? There's a lot of confusion since the
   utility and it's location in the source tree have different names.

Stefan

[yhlu]

can you use uint8_t there?

YH

On 11/12/05, Stefan Reinauer  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> flash_and_burn does not compile in gcc 4 anymore since it comes
> with -Werror. This makes sense since it is touching a very sensitive
> part of a system :-)
>
> Since gcc 4 warns a lot more about signed/unsigned pointer confusion
> I changed major parts of flash_and_burn to use unsigned pointers only.
> We are coping with data, so signedness is not interesting in the code.
> In fact it might rather hurt.
>
> I'll apply the patch to the repository shortly, when someone signs it
> off.
>
> Other questions:
> Can we drop flash_on? The code seems included in flash_rom and it
>
> only works on old sis stuff anyways. We will not drop functionality
> by dropping this extra binary.
> Should we rename the utility to flash_and_burn or should we rename
>
> the directory to flash_rom? There's a lot of confusion since the
> utility and it's location in the source tree have different names.
>
> Stefan

[Ronald G Minnich]

Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> Other questions:
> Can we drop flash_on? The code seems included in flash_rom and it
> only works on old sis stuff anyways. We will not drop functionality 
> by dropping this extra binary.

drop it.
> Should we rename the utility to flash_and_burn or should we rename
> the directory to flash_rom? There's a lot of confusion since the
> utility and it's location in the source tree have different names.

for (i = 0; i < total_size / page_size; i++) {
>

yeah, that sounds good. I will miss the name flash_and_burn though.

ron