Re: [flashrom] [PATCH] Convert chips to block erasers: ST

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

On 19.01.2010 09:01, Sean Nelson wrote:
> This should be the last-last revision of this patch.
>
> Convert ST to block erasers:
> ST M25P05-A
> ST M25P05.RES
> ST M25P10-A
> ST M25P10.RES
> ST M25P20
> ST M25P40
> ST M25P40-old
> ST M25P80
> ST M25P16
> ST M25P32
> ST M25P64
> ST M25P128
> ST M29F002B
> ST M29F002T/NT
> ST M29F040B
> ST M29F400BT
> ST M29W010B
> ST M29W040B
> ST M50FLW040A
> ST M50FLW040B
> ST M50FLW080A
> ST M50FLW080B
> ST M50FW002
> ST M50FW016
> ST M50FW040
> ST M50FW080
> ST M50LPW116
>
> Add erase_chip_stm50flw0x0x to stm50flw0x0x.c
> Add copyright to stm50flw0x0x.c
> Fix block sizes and counts
> Omit M50FLW0x0x mixed sector/block eraser
> Convert the used 82802ab functions to their stm50flw0x0x equivalents
> Fix incorrect sizes as found by Carl-Daniel.
> Add back M50FLW0x0x mixed sector/block eraser sans function pointer.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sean Nelson

Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
> {
>    	.vendor		= "ST",
>    	.name		= "M50FLW040A",
>    	.bustype	= CHIP_BUSTYPE_FWH|CHIP_BUSTYPE_LPC, /* A/A Mux */
>    	.manufacture_id	= ST_ID,
>    	.model_id	= ST_M50FLW040A,
>    	.total_size	= 512,
>    	.page_size	= 64 * 1024,
>    	.feature_bits	= FEATURE_REGISTERMAP,
>    	.tested		= TEST_UNTESTED,
>    	.probe		= probe_jedec,
>    	.probe_timing	= TIMING_FIXME,
> .erase		= erase_stm50flw0x0x,
> .erase		= NULL,
> .block_erasers	=
> {
> 	{
> 		.eraseblocks = {
> 			{4 * 1024, 16},  /* sector */
> 			{64 * 1024, 5}, /* block */
> 			{4 * 1024, 16}, /* sector */
> 			{4 * 1024, 16}, /* sector */
> 		},
> 		.block_erase = NULL,

Not exactly what I had in mind (I thought about specifying the function
and not the blocks), but flashrom can deal with this as well.

It might be a good idea to change the line

{64 * 1024, 5},

to

{320 * 1024, -1},

once flashrom can deal with negative sizes and interpret them as
"function does not apply to this area". Or we create a special erase
function which does different things based on eraseblock size/location.

Your code is OK right now (please don't follow my suggestion right now),
and I just wanted to discuss further development options.
> 	}, {
> 		.eraseblocks = { {64 * 1024, 8}, },
> 		.block_erase = erase_block_stm50flw0x0x,
> 	}, {
> 		.eraseblocks = { {512 * 1024, 1} },
> 		.block_erase = erase_chip_stm50flw0x0x,
> 	}
> },
> .write		= write_stm50flw0x0x,
> .read		= read_memmapped,
> },

Regards,
Carl-Daniel