Attention is currently required from: DZ, Nikolai Artemiev, Stefan Reinauer.
Anastasia Klimchuk has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/79633?usp=email )
Change subject: flashchips: Remove Macronix MX25U25635F from chip list ......................................................................
Patch Set 1:
(3 comments)
Commit Message:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/79633/comment/e3440f1b_798cb553 : PS1, Line 7: Remove Macronix MX25U25635F from chip list If the patch goes through (see my other comment), then commit title need to mention both chips, for example:
Update definitions for MX25U25635F and MX25U25643G
Patchset:
PS1: Daniel, thank you for the patch! Sorry there was some delay in review, we had holidays here. Happy New Year!
File flashchips.c:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/79633/comment/7ad9014e_951f3633 : PS1, Line 10310: .wps = {SECURITY, 7, OTP}, /* This bit is set by WPSEL command */ I looked through both datasheets, and found there is unfortunately this one difference!
For MX25U25643G: Table 12. Security Register Definitions has bit7 set by WPSEL command (as it is in the existing definition)
For MX25U25635F: Table 8. Security Register Definitions has bit7 marked as reserved
So this one `.wps` definition in `.reg_bits` only applies to newer model it seems.
In general, this was the only difference between two chip definitions, the older one had no support for write-protect operation defined, the newer one has it defined as marked as tested.
Let's also check with Nikolai, but in general, if there is any difference between two chip definitions, we will need to leave both of them (people might still have old chips used).
Your other idea about renaming model id macro is valid though, maybe it can be done even if both definitions stay.