On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 20:38:33 +0200 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net wrote:
Am 30.06.2011 20:07 schrieb Carl-Daniel Hailfinger:
Am 30.06.2011 19:54 schrieb Carl-Daniel Hailfinger: With the changes outlined above: Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net
Ahem. I should have quoted the part where a new bug appears, and should have requested a fix for that.
@@ -1814,13 +1824,13 @@ int chip_safety_check(struct flashchip *flash, int force, int read_it, int write } if (erase_it || write_it) { /* Write needs erase. */ - if (flash->tested & TEST_BAD_ERASE) { + if (flash->tested & TEST_BAD_ERASE &&
As discussed on IRC, this should be ||.
- !check_block_erasers(flash, 0)) { msg_cerr("Erase is not working
on this chip. "); if (!force)
And once you switch to || above, you may get a segfault if no block erasers exist. Zero usable erase functions is a non-recoverable condition, it can not be overridden with --force.
We do perform that check for more than zero usable erase functions elsewhere already. Either move that check here (with a separate if statement, and add a comment in the original place that checking has moved), or leave it where it is and keep the code here as is.
i dont understand what you are talking about. the erasers are allocated no matter if they "exist" or not in a fix-sized array. a segfault could only happen if we try to dereference a block eraser function and jump there which we don't do here. what access(es) should segfault exactly?
i have tried my current, reworked patch with: "./flashrom -p dummy:bus=spi,emulate="M25P10.RES" -V -c "M25P10.RES" -E" after deleting the block erasers for that chip i.e. .block_erasers = {}; i get the expected output of "Erase is not working on this chip. Aborting."