Attention is currently required from: Daniel, Nikolai Artemiev, Stefan Reinauer.
1 comment:
File flashchips.c:
Patch Set #1, Line 10310: .wps = {SECURITY, 7, OTP}, /* This bit is set by WPSEL command */
Hi, if WPSEL command is issued for MX25U25635F (older chip), it will be ignored.
In general, what Nikolai is saying is the right approach, and also it's a future-proof approach.
I understand this situation happens for the first time? (the situation being two chips of the same model ID, and the customer only wants the newest one). But realistically, it is likely to happen again. And next time two chips may have more differences than just one .wps reg bit.
As an upstream project, we maintain all the chips (and older too) and removing the chip definition is something extremely rare (to the extent that I have never seen this happening).
There are lots of users, and you never know which chips people are using.
Specifically to your customer situation, if the customer has a fork of flashrom, they can introduce a local list of chips to ignore, and add old models there. This way they don't need to change automatic test flow, and also it's a future-proof solution as any more old chips like that can be added to the list.
In terms of how hard it is to implement, Chrome OS flashrom is also open source, and they implemented this solution, so the code can be used as an inspiration. If you are interested, I can try to find links to relevant code.
I don't know how your communication with customer is set up, but if it is fine, you are welcome to share with them the link to this patch (so that they can see the discussion), and you can even add them to this patch (if there is an engineer from customer side who can create a Gerrit account).
What do you think about it?
To view, visit change 79633. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.