Attention is currently required from: Simon Buhrow, Thomas Heijligen, Aarya.

View Change

1 comment:

• File spi.c:

  • Patch Set #2, Line 50: &spi_erase_at45cs_sector, 0x50},

    Maybe we can make a separate probe_opcode function for this chip?

    That could work too. Given that the chip has only a single erasefunc,
    that function would be simpler. But I'm not sure if it wouldn't be more
    code overall and we'd also have yet another pointer in struct flashchip.

    What I would do: Keep spi_get_erasefn_from_opcode() in `spi25.c`.
    After all that is the scope it's supposed to support. Implement
    spi_get_opcode_from_erasefn() here, let it return a list of codes
    `const uint8_t *`. Its code doesn't even have to change (beside
    returning NULL instead of 0x00). The struct for function_opcode_list[]
    would get an `uint8_t opcodes[3]`. Fields omitted are 0, so we'd only
    have to add some more braces and get a 0-termination for free. The
    caller would get a simple loop that stops when it encounters a 0.

    That would leave us with two very similar lists for both functions.
    But I don't think it's too bad, after all they serve different purposes.

To view, visit change 67354. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.