Am Sonntag, den 19.06.2011, 19:11 +0200 schrieb Uwe Hermann:
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 12:29:18AM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
Look at the return value of wait_82802ab() Index: sst49lfxxxc.c =================================================================== --- sst49lfxxxc.c (revision 993) +++ sst49lfxxxc.c (working copy) @@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ chip_writeb(0xD0, bios + address); status = wait_82802ab(bios);
[...] basically a good idea, but printing one status dump per erased block seems a bit excessive, even in verbose mode, as there are some chips with 4K sector size. Could you limit status printing to "status != 0x80", as this is "ready, no error bits"?
That's what the 82802ab and sharp lhf00l04 do, too. So if you think the behavior should be changed, you should change it in all three places.
That's the plan.
In the mean-time I guess we can get this in (r1347), if only to reduce the patch queue size.
Getting this in is a good idea, as IIRC this is the point gcc 4.6 disliked (for not using the status variable). Not printing the chip status 512 times also is a good ides, so I sent a patch that implements "print status only if abnormal". Sorry for working against getting the patch queue small, but we shouldn't forget it.
BTW: the 82802ab and lhf00l04 *block* erase procedures operate on blocks around 64k, while the sst49 *sector* erase procedure that just was changed in this commit is for 4k sectors, so dumping the status here is much more excessive as in the other cases - probably that's the reason why the status printing was not in.
Regards, Michael Karcher