Change in flashrom[master]: flashchips.c: big erase blocksize first

[Simon Buhrow (Code Review)]

Simon Buhrow has uploaded this change for review. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/58467 )

Change subject: flashchips.c: big erase blocksize first
......................................................................

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 
---
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,