Change in flashrom[master]: [RFC][WPTST] dummyflasher: enforce write protection for W25Q128FV
Attention is currently required from: Nico Huber, Angel Pons, Anastasia Klimchuk. Sergii Dmytruk has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/59074 )
Change subject: [RFC][WPTST] dummyflasher: enforce write protection for W25Q128FV ......................................................................
Patch Set 11:
(6 comments)
File dummyflasher.c:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/59074/comment/53a034e2_d039d171 PS10, Line 63: bool wp; /* state of hardware write protection */
And this name also can be hwwp
Done
https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/59074/comment/83befa54_5ca45f78 PS10, Line 244: write_flash_part
The name is a bit confusing, what "part" means here? And same for erase_flash_part
Part of the emulated flash defined by the range. Changed to "data".
https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/59074/comment/d39a105c_b524f362 PS10, Line 264: /* XXX: should data->erase_to_zero be taken into account here? */
Is it a TODO, or work-in-progress note?
It's a question to anyone who'll read the code. It just looks like a bug, but I'm not entirely sure.
https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/59074/comment/8a015d3c_28e7d25b PS10, Line 967: will have WP enabled
Hardware WP?
Done
File flashrom.8.tmpl:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/59074/comment/ac4b5373_a46ebc23 PS10, Line 696: Winbond " W25Q128FV " SPI flash chip (16384 kB, RDID)"
Oh wow this was missing in the man for all the time?! Thank you for spotting! […]
Sent in CB:59811
https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/59074/comment/21232b59_1b262fdb PS10, Line 792: wp=state
I remember we discussed that in the patch with test, yes now I see that "hwwp" would be a better nam […]
Done
-
Sergii Dmytruk (Code Review)