Anastasia Klimchuk has posted comments on this change by Anastasia Klimchuk. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/82723?usp=email )
Change subject: [WIP] Erase blocks are selected smaller than expected ......................................................................
Patch Set 1:
(1 comment)
Patchset:
PS1: Running this on head, erase blocks are more granular than expected, specifically:
1017 [ RUN ] Erase test case #6 1018 Creating layout ... done 1019 Dummyflasher initialising with param=""... done 1020 Erase test case #6 started. 1021 Eraser called with blockaddr=0xf, blocklen=0x1 1022 read_chip called with start=0xf, len=0x1 1023 Eraser called with blockaddr=0xe, blocklen=0x1 1024 read_chip called with start=0xe, len=0x1 1025 Eraser called with blockaddr=0x6, blocklen=0x2 1026 read_chip called with start=0x6, len=0x2 1027 Eraser called with blockaddr=0xc, blocklen=0x2 1028 read_chip called with start=0xc, len=0x2 1029 Eraser called with blockaddr=0x8, blocklen=0x4 1030 read_chip called with start=0x8, len=0x4 1031 Eraser called with blockaddr=0x2, blocklen=0x2 1032 read_chip called with start=0x2, len=0x2 1033 Eraser called with blockaddr=0x4, blocklen=0x2 1034 read_chip called with start=0x4, len=0x2 1035 Eraser called with blockaddr=0x0, blocklen=0x2 1036 read_chip called with start=0x0, len=0x2 1037 Erase test case #6 returned 0. 1038 Erased chip memory state for Erase test case #6 is CORRECT 1039 Eraseblocks order of invocation for Erase test case #6 is WRONG 1040 Eraseblocks number of invocations for Erase test case #6 is WRONG, expected 4 actual 8
1021 Eraser called with blockaddr=0xf, blocklen=0x1 1023 Eraser called with blockaddr=0xe, blocklen=0x1 -> this could be one eraseblock of size 2
1031 Eraser called with blockaddr=0x2, blocklen=0x2 1033 Eraser called with blockaddr=0x4, blocklen=0x2 -> this could be one eraseblock of size 4
-
Anastasia Klimchuk (Code Review)