Re: [flashrom] [PATCH 2/3] add check_block_erasers which returns the number of well-defined erasers for a chip

[Stefan Tauner]

On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 00:27:35 +0200
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger  wrote:
> Sorry, another comment...
>
> Am 01.07.2011 00:25 schrieb Carl-Daniel Hailfinger:
> > Am 30.06.2011 22:37 schrieb Stefan Tauner:
> > > add count_usable_erasers which returns the number of well-defined erasers for a chip
> > >
> > > This can be used in various situations (including one in the upcoming SFDP patch) and
> > > removes one FIXME in current HEAD. Needed to add a declaration of check_block_eraser.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner
> > >
> > > diff --git a/flashrom.c b/flashrom.c
> > > index 13d398e..10035c4 100644
> > > --- a/flashrom.c
> > > +++ b/flashrom.c
> > > @@ -1818,13 +1830,13 @@ 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 ||
> > >     !count_usable_erasers(flash, 0)) {
> >
> > Please split that if statement. Allowing --force makes sense for
> > TEST_BAD_ERASE, but it makes no sense if no erase functions are present.
> > You can reuse the error message, the compiler/linker will only store the
> > string once.
>
> Would it make sense to remove the check for usable_erasefunctions!=0 in
> erase_and_write_flash() if we already do it here?

i think so, yes.
after i split up the if this should no longer be needed because it
should never get that far. testing agrees, so i have removed it and
committed the whole thing in r1358. thanks for the review!