Re: [flashrom] [PATCH] Print lock status for Winbond W39*

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

On 05.12.2010 00:06, Michael Karcher wrote:
> Am Samstag, den 04.12.2010, 05:25 +0100 schrieb Carl-Daniel Hailfinger:
> > +static int printlock_w39_wblwp(uint8_t lock)
>
> as discussed on IRC: typo in function name.

Fixed.
> > +int printlock_w39v040c(struct flashchip *flash)
> > +{
> > return printlock_w39_common(flash, 0xfff2);
> >
> > +}
>
> I would guess this is a typo in the datasheet, and should be 0x7fff2
> too, OTOH, that datasheet uses that address consistently and that
> address was also used in the old code. Still it should be tested on real
> hardware, and left the way you have it now.

I have added a comment.
> > +/* Unused because W39V040B and W39V040FB can not be distinguished from each
> > other based on ID.
> > */
>
> That comment is not true anymore.
> > +/* Unused because W39V040C and W39V040FC can not be distinguished from each
> > other based on ID.
> > */
>
> Dito.

Both fixed.
> > +int unlock_w39v080fa(struct flashchip *flash)
> > +{
> > if (unlock_w39_fwh(flash))
> > return -1;
> > /* The soft bootblock locks may have been deactivated by the unlock
> > * above, so check them last.
> > */
> > if (printlock_w39_common(flash, 0xffff2))
> > return -1;
> > return 0;
> >
> > +}
>
> I don't understand the comment in here: The w39v080fa does not have the
> software boot block lock feature if I skimmed over the datasheet
> correctly, and the software boot block lock other chips have is
> permanent and can not be cleared.

Yes, the comment was a leftover from another unlocking function I wanted
to write. Killed.
> Acked-by: Michael Karcher

Thanks, committed in r1245.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel