Simon Buhrow has uploaded this change for review.
flashchips.c: big erase blocksize first
Choosing the best fitting erase block size can safe
a significant amount of runtime. Changing the order
of entries of block_erasers in flashchips.c going
from the bigger block size to lower block size does
a better job.
I am running flashrom inside a VirtualBox so the
gained time is quite big.
Setup: IS25LP064 flash + ft2232H programmer
Saved time: > 2 min for single '-E' operation
Change-Id: I862ce0b5f8912565e43c340578d8126aa2e6aa3b
Signed-off-by: Simon Buhrow <simon.buhrow@posteo.de>
---
M flashchips.c
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
git pull ssh://review.coreboot.org:29418/flashrom refs/changes/67/58467/1
diff --git a/flashchips.c b/flashchips.c
index 434c46d..8212e19 100644
--- a/flashchips.c
+++ b/flashchips.c
@@ -7317,6 +7317,12 @@
.block_erasers =
{
{
+ .eraseblocks = { {8 * 1024 * 1024, 1} },
+ .block_erase = spi_block_erase_c7,
+ }, {
+ .eraseblocks = { {8 * 1024 * 1024, 1} },
+ .block_erase = spi_block_erase_60,
+ }, {
.eraseblocks = { {4 * 1024, 2048} },
.block_erase = spi_block_erase_20,
}, {
@@ -7328,12 +7334,6 @@
}, {
.eraseblocks = { {64 * 1024, 128} },
.block_erase = spi_block_erase_d8,
- }, {
- .eraseblocks = { {8 * 1024 * 1024, 1} },
- .block_erase = spi_block_erase_60,
- }, {
- .eraseblocks = { {8 * 1024 * 1024, 1} },
- .block_erase = spi_block_erase_c7,
}
},
.unlock = spi_disable_blockprotect,
To view, visit change 58467. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.