5 comments:
Patch Set #3, Line 105: if (!flash || !flash->mst || !flash->mst->spi.data) {
Most likely this won't be true, but this prevent some cases that `register_lspcon_i2c_spi_master` mi […]
Does it make sense or we want to remove the check?
I am pretty sure there is no new line at the end, is that just a display issue?
Done
Patch Set #4, Line 270: int ret = lspcon_i2c_spi_disable_all_protection(fd);
Are you sure all of this is necessary for every command and that none of this duplicates commands th […]
Sorry thought I have replied this but somehow it's missing. On the tracking bug I think the vendor do state that we probably need to disable protection before every write attempt, as well as the register protection. As far as I know I didn't see there is any protection disable operation happens with the process. The only thing I noticed was https://github.com/flashrom/flashrom/blob/cd8aeba7f1cee4c2bd1f8598009fc3e6e7afd8bb/spi25_statusreg.c#L131 defines a disable block protect function, but that only invoked inside some local function but seems not get called on flash process(?). Not sure if that make sense and Angel can you help verify that? Thanks!
Patch Set #4, Line 364: uint8_t write_buffer[len + 1];
This is quite unsettling, indeed. […]
We can use a fixed size buffer with buf[256 + 1] since that'd be the max size. But does it really helps lot?
Patch Set #4, Line 365: write_buffer[0] = 0
I think it is the requirement for i2c data transfer to write the start offset before the write data, […]
Do you have any idea if we have to change this or resolve the comment?
To view, visit change 39687. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.