Re: [flashrom] Giving to -i option some real use

[Антон Кочков]

I hope my rebase and my patches would be useful - see branch
layout_descriptor in https://github.com/XVilka/flashrom
On Apr 25, 2016 10:08 PM, "Nico Huber"  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've looked at many patches now and feel pretty dazed.
>
> While it's not ready yet (most probably because it didn't get a review),
> I'm in clear favor of Alexander's approach:
> > https://www.flashrom.org/pipermail/flashrom/2014-October/012967.html
>
> It does what I'd expect of layout support, takes the erase blocks into
> account, and leaves the whole code in a better shape (gets rid of the
> ugly flow in doit()).
>
> The separate functions for erase / read / verify reminded me of lib-
> flashrom, and that I actually wanted to rewrite doit() years ago to
> use the libflashrom functions. Which brings me to the following pro-
> posal:
>
> 1st take the modified walk_eraseregions() from Alexander's patch,
> 2nd rewrite the libflashrom patch to use it,
> 3rd rewrite doit() using libflashrom.
>
> So far this would suffice my use case. However, it would overrun major
> features of Stefan's layout patch series: The new layout format and
> the `-i <image>[:<file>]` support. Well, the former seems orthogonal to
> the other changes, and the latter would require more work for a similar
> feature in libflashrom anyway.
>
> So my main concern is that if I don't push forward libflashrom now,
> we will maintain two code paths until libflashrom is used internally
> by flashrom.
>
> Any comments?
>
> Best regards,
> Nico
>
> Tel.: [phone], Fax: [phone]
> E-Mail: [e-mail]
> Mergenthalerallee 77, 65760 Eschborn, Deutschland
> www.secunet.com
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> Sitz: Kurfürstenstraße 58, 45138 Essen, Deutschland
> Amtsgericht Essen HRB 13615
> Vorstand: Dr. Rainer Baumgart (Vors.), Thomas Pleines
> Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Dr. Peter Zattler
> ______________________________________________________________________