See patch.
We should also rename w49f002u.c in another patch to something more generic, that code is in no way specific to the w49f002u. Maybe even put the only function in that file (byte-wise JEDEC writes of one page/sector) into jedec.c?
Uwe.
On 12.05.2009 15:46, Uwe Hermann wrote:
See patch.
We should also rename w49f002u.c in another patch to something more generic, that code is in no way specific to the w49f002u. Maybe even put the only function in that file (byte-wise JEDEC writes of one page/sector) into jedec.c?
Sounds like a good idea. Usually, the only thing that differs between various LPC/FWH flashes is block locking, the rest is identical. Maybe add a function pointer to struct flashchip which takes block_locking(struct flashchip chip, enum (LOCK, UNLOCK, CHECK) action, int start, int len) That would allow probably even more refactoring.
The write_39sf020() and write_49f002() functions are identical except for whitespace differences, so drop one of them.
Signed-off-by: Uwe Hermann uwe@hermann-uwe.de
Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net
Regards, Carl-Daniel
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 03:55:27PM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
We should also rename w49f002u.c in another patch to something more generic, that code is in no way specific to the w49f002u. Maybe even put the only function in that file (byte-wise JEDEC writes of one page/sector) into jedec.c?
Sounds like a good idea. Usually, the only thing that differs between various LPC/FWH flashes is block locking, the rest is identical. Maybe add a function pointer to struct flashchip which takes block_locking(struct flashchip chip, enum (LOCK, UNLOCK, CHECK) action, int start, int len) That would allow probably even more refactoring.
The write_39sf020() and write_49f002() functions are identical except for whitespace differences, so drop one of them.
Signed-off-by: Uwe Hermann uwe@hermann-uwe.de
Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net
Thanks, r497.
Uwe.
-
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger -
Uwe Hermann