Nico Huber has submitted this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/58617 )
Change subject: Makefile: compiler target: separate fixed text and value by a colon
......................................................................
Makefile: compiler target: separate fixed text and value by a colon
Continue to use the "key: value" format like for the C compiler.
Use only shell code for TARGET_OS comparison.
Change-Id: I69959c20aa2e43ed67b3057c37e964a34cdab136
Signed-off-by: Thomas Heijligen <thomas.heijligen(a)secunet.com>
Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/58617
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply(a)coreboot.org>
Reviewed-by: Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de>
---
M Makefile
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
Approvals:
build bot (Jenkins): Verified
Nico Huber: Looks good to me, approved
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 1c3181a..e84248a 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -893,17 +893,15 @@
@if [ $(CC_WORKING) = yes ]; \
then $(CC) --version 2>/dev/null | head -1; \
else echo no; echo Aborting.; exit 1; fi
- @echo Target arch is $(ARCH)
+ @echo "Target arch: $(ARCH)"
@if [ $(ARCH) = unknown ]; then echo Aborting.; exit 1; fi
- @echo Target OS is $(TARGET_OS)
+ @echo "Target OS: $(TARGET_OS)"
@if [ $(TARGET_OS) = unknown ]; then echo Aborting.; exit 1; fi
- @echo Target endian is $(ENDIAN)
+ @if [ $(TARGET_OS) = libpayload ] && ! $(CC) --version 2>&1 | grep -q coreboot; then \
+ echo " Warning: It seems you are not using coreboot's reference compiler."; \
+ echo " This might work but usually does not, please beware."; fi
+ @echo "Target endian: $(ENDIAN)"
@if [ $(ENDIAN) = unknown ]; then echo Aborting.; exit 1; fi
-ifeq ($(TARGET_OS), libpayload)
- @$(CC) --version 2>&1 | grep -q coreboot || \
- ( echo "Warning: It seems you are not using coreboot's reference compiler."; \
- echo "This might work but usually does not, please beware." )
-endif
hwlibs: compiler
@printf "" > .libdeps
3 is the latest approved patch-set.
No files were changed between the latest approved patch-set and the submitted one.
--
To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/58617
To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://review.coreboot.org/settings
Gerrit-Project: flashrom
Gerrit-Branch: master
Gerrit-Change-Id: I69959c20aa2e43ed67b3057c37e964a34cdab136
Gerrit-Change-Number: 58617
Gerrit-PatchSet: 6
Gerrit-Owner: Thomas Heijligen <src(a)posteo.de>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Angel Pons <th3fanbus(a)gmail.com>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de>
Gerrit-Reviewer: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply(a)coreboot.org>
Gerrit-CC: Paul Menzel <paulepanter(a)mailbox.org>
Gerrit-MessageType: merged
Attention is currently required from: Edward O'Callaghan, Angel Pons, Anastasia Klimchuk.
Nico Huber has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/58103 )
Change subject: tests: Add wraps for __xstat variants of stat
......................................................................
Patch Set 4: Code-Review+1
(1 comment)
Commit Message:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/58103/comment/5cc1f7b6_adc45ed4
PS2, Line 9: all
> Environment this applies to: __xstat64 wrap is needed to run unit tests with emerge under chromium c […]
That's enough information to retest this if ever necessary. I hope this
will not turn into a cat-and-mouse game where we'd have to add more wraps
in the future. But if it does: we could try to mock the header file as
well.
--
To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/58103
To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://review.coreboot.org/settings
Gerrit-Project: flashrom
Gerrit-Branch: master
Gerrit-Change-Id: I4c5c243acde09dc5bb6b2a14042fcd23a49707db
Gerrit-Change-Number: 58103
Gerrit-PatchSet: 4
Gerrit-Owner: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Angel Pons <th3fanbus(a)gmail.com>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Edward O'Callaghan <quasisec(a)chromium.org>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de>
Gerrit-Reviewer: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply(a)coreboot.org>
Gerrit-CC: Paul Menzel <paulepanter(a)mailbox.org>
Gerrit-Attention: Edward O'Callaghan <quasisec(a)chromium.org>
Gerrit-Attention: Angel Pons <th3fanbus(a)gmail.com>
Gerrit-Attention: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org>
Gerrit-Comment-Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2021 15:41:12 +0000
Gerrit-HasComments: Yes
Gerrit-Has-Labels: Yes
Comment-In-Reply-To: Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de>
Comment-In-Reply-To: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org>
Gerrit-MessageType: comment
Attention is currently required from: Simon Buhrow, Angel Pons.
Nico Huber has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/58467 )
Change subject: flashchips.c: big erase blocksize first
......................................................................
Patch Set 5:
(3 comments)
Patchset:
PS5:
> The clou is the condition […]
I'm generally not a fan of special cases. However, if we can find a
contained solution for the full-chip erase case, I wouldn't block it.
Technically, checks like `per_blockfn == &erase_block` are a layering
violation, i.e. something is done in a lower layer that should have
been handled at a higher level. I left an inline comment about how I
would avoid it.
Eventually, I would prefer a generic solution for the small block-size
problem, I think it's not hard to achieve. We should replace the
current fallback-to-bigger-blocks strategy with one that checks if
consecutive calls of a small erase function would completely fill
a bigger one. There's one obstacle, however: The fallback strategy was
necessary because some programmers can restrict what commands we
can send. I would handle that by filtering the list of erase functions
right after the chip was probed.
File flashrom.c:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/58467/comment/242d4715_0b2ac6b4
PS5, Line 1261: if ((block_size == flashctx->chip->total_size * 1024) && per_blockfn == &erase_block){
I guess this would be much easier to handle in flashrom_flash_erase(). If the
size matches the full chip and the last eraseblocks[] entry too, then call
that eraser directly, and if it fails fall back to erase_by_layout(). No loops
and definitely no nested loops necessary.
https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/58467/comment/e3d2c7a5_3870fea2
PS5, Line 1304: }
Why change this? Doesn't the code handle this case gracefully?
--
To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/58467
To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://review.coreboot.org/settings
Gerrit-Project: flashrom
Gerrit-Branch: master
Gerrit-Change-Id: I862ce0b5f8912565e43c340578d8126aa2e6aa3b
Gerrit-Change-Number: 58467
Gerrit-PatchSet: 5
Gerrit-Owner: Simon Buhrow
Gerrit-Reviewer: Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de>
Gerrit-Reviewer: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply(a)coreboot.org>
Gerrit-CC: Angel Pons <th3fanbus(a)gmail.com>
Gerrit-CC: Paul Menzel <paulepanter(a)mailbox.org>
Gerrit-Attention: Simon Buhrow
Gerrit-Attention: Angel Pons <th3fanbus(a)gmail.com>
Gerrit-Comment-Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2021 15:09:46 +0000
Gerrit-HasComments: Yes
Gerrit-Has-Labels: No
Comment-In-Reply-To: Simon Buhrow
Comment-In-Reply-To: Angel Pons <th3fanbus(a)gmail.com>
Gerrit-MessageType: comment