Re: [flashrom] [PATCH] Don't show address for dediprog & Co

[Mathias Krause]

On 14.01.2011 20:10, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> Stefan Reinauer  [110113 01:43]:
>
> updated patch, shows the programmer name if there is no physical address
> to show:
>
> flashrom v0.9.3-r1250 on Linux 2.6.35 (x86_64), built with libpci 3.1.7, GCC 4.5.1, little endian
> flashrom is free software, get the source code at http://www.flashrom.org
>
> Calibrating delay loop... OK.
> Found chip "Winbond W25Q32" (4096 KB, SPI) on dediprog.
> Erasing and writing flash chip... Done.
> Verifying flash... VERIFIED.
> Don't print the local memory flash chip address on programmers that don't
> actually map the flash chip into local memory (like the dediprog) because
> the value does not make sense there.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Reinauer
> Index: flashrom.c
>
> --- flashrom.c	(revision 1250)
> +++ flashrom.c	(working copy)
> @@ -604,6 +604,24 @@
>    programmer_table[programmer].delay(usecs);
>  }
>
> +char *programmer_extension_to_text(struct flashchip *flash)
> +{
> static char extension[64];
> memset(extension, 0, 64);
> if (programmer_table[programmer].map_flash_region == physmap) {
> unsigned long base;
> uint32_t size;
> size = flash->total_size * 1024;
> base = flashbase ? flashbase : (0xffffffff - size + 1);
> snprintf(extension, sizeof(extension), " at physical address 0x%lx", base);
> } else {
> snprintf(extension, sizeof(extension), " on %s",
> 		programmer_table[programmer].name);
> }
> return extension;
>
> +}
>
> void map_flash_registers(struct flashchip *flash)
>  {
>    size_t size = flash->total_size * 1024;
> @@ -1178,10 +1196,11 @@
>    if (!flash || !flash->name)
>    	return NULL;
> msg_cinfo("%s chip "%s %s" (%d KB, %s) at physical address 0x%lx.\n",
> msg_cinfo("%s chip "%s %s" (%d KB, %s)%s.\n",
>      force ? "Assuming" : "Found",
>      flash->vendor, flash->name, flash->total_size,
>       flashbuses_to_text(flash->bustype), base);
>       flashbuses_to_text(flash->bustype),
>       programmer_extension_to_text(flash));
>
> /* Flash registers will not be mapped if the chip was forced. Lock info
> may be stored in registers, so avoid lock info printing.

Sounds like a good idea. Albeit adding a new function that recalculates
size and base seems unnecessary. By inlining the code the static char
array can be avoided, too. See attached modification of the patch.

Otherwise: Acked-by: Mathias Krause