I don't know how to make a valid patch. I have added support for the Winbond W29EE011 Chip. This is an old device. But I found it on same mainboards.
Greeding Markus
* Markus Boas bios@ryven.de [070829 15:11]:
I don't know how to make a valid patch.
http://www.linuxbios.org/Development_Guidelines#How_to_contribute
Am Mittwoch 29 August 2007 schrieb Stefan Reinauer:
I don't know what is going wrong, but now i have the patch. I not realy worked befor with svn.
Greedings Markus
Signed-off-by: Markus Boas ryven@ryven.de
Great, thanks for the patch!
* Markus Boas bios@ryven.de [070829 15:34]:
So is it on purpose that the 29C011 and the 29EE011 have the same ID but need a different probing sequence?
Yes, but the W29EE011 is an old device so I think they have recycled the ID.
Am Mittwoch 29 August 2007 schrieb Stefan Reinauer:
I forgot, I tested on a Geode GX1 system. Read, write and verify theams to work.
Markus
Am Mittwoch 29 August 2007 schrieb Markus Boas:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 03:34:19PM +0200, Markus Boas wrote:
Please drop the above and use the generic LinuxBIOS header as per http://linuxbios.org/Development_Guidelines#Common_License_Header
(yes, I know, the existing files are b0rked too, I'll fix that in a minute)
Drop this file completely please, the function prototype is in flash.h already and this file is useless.
Also, please update the README file with the newly supported chip. Otherwise the patch looks good.
Thanks, Uwe.
I forgot the readme
Index: README =================================================================== --- README (Revision 2751) +++ README (Arbeitskopie) @@ -147,6 +147,7 @@ SyncMOS S29C51002T/B SyncMOS S29C51004T/B SyncMOS S29C31004T +Winbond W29EE011 Winbond W29C011 Winbond W29C020C Winbond W49F002U
Am Mittwoch 29 August 2007 schrieb Markus Boas:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 08:10:31AM +0200, Markus Boas wrote:
Signed-off-by: Markus Boas ryven@ryven.de
Thanks, committed in r2753 (with minor changes).
Uwe.
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 09:27:59PM +0200, Markus Boas wrote:
I hope this one is better
Almost, please add the Signed-off-by to _all_ patches you send (you forgot it on this patch), and please also include the README update in this patch.
Why is this W_29C040P here? I don't see it used anywhere. I guess we should remove it from the patch?
^^^^^^^^^ Make this "flashrom" please
Please repost with a Signed-off-by and the above fixes, I think this is ready to be committed otherwise.
Uwe.
On 30.08.2007 02:07, Uwe Hermann wrote:
I disagree. In my opinion flashrom is a part of the LinuxBIOS project. However, we should discuss that in general for all utilities.
Carl-Daniel
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 02:19:08AM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
Hm, depends on the viewpoint and personal preference, I guess. Flashrom shares some/most of the developers with LinuxBIOS, but that doesn't make it part of the LinuxBIOS project (as in: the firmware software called LinuxBIOS). It's an independant user-space command line tool, which just happens to be developed by the same people as LinuxBIOS.
The same is probably true for lxbios, FILO, lbmenu, and other related tools.
Uwe.
On 8/30/07, Uwe Hermann uwe@hermann-uwe.de wrote:
It began as part of linuxbios. At the very least, the heritage of these tools should be acknowledged in the comments.
ron
Am Thu, 30 Aug 2007 02:07:45 +0200 schrieb Uwe Hermann uwe@hermann-uwe.de:
You are right. The patch for the Winbond 29C040P isn't finisch yet.