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

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

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?
> > 	msg_cerr("Erase is not working on this chip. ");
> > 	if (!force)
> > 		return 1;
> > 	msg_cerr("Continuing anyway.\n");
> > }
> > /* FIXME: Check if at least one erase function exists. */
> > }
> > if (write_it) {
> > if (flash->tested & TEST_BAD_WRITE) {
>
> With the split if statement, this is
> Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger

Regards,
Carl-Daniel