On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 10:18:36 +1000 Roman Titov titovroman@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Roman!
Well, I think this could be the result of my inexperience with svn (and git-svn).
So, here's my steps:
- git svn clone -rHEAD (r1887, to be exact) flashrom-trunk (I have an
error, when I'm trying to make full git svn clone, looks like git bug :/) 2. *code* 3. make 2 local commits 4. git format-patch, and it throw me 2 patches for 2 latest commits not over current origin (and I think thats is the reason) 5. send patches to mailing list
That's perfectly fine and how I work too (well, I use git send-email for 4 and 5).
My suggestions would be:
- shallow copying broke smth (idea, that git svn could bond git stuff
to full svn history stuff came to me just right now) 2. formating 2 patches broke smth 3. both?
The problem is/was the last hunk. I guess you have opened the patch file in an editor that removes white space at the end of lines. The patch application does not seem to care but git-am does.
Anyway, here is a list of things I have noticed in the patch.
From 3612049b7f6b2283ae4e593e66f369144b9e997b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Roman Titov titovroman@gmail.com Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 17:18:43 +1000 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] flashchips: new GigaDevice chips (GD25LQ40, GD25LQ80, GD25LQ16, GD25LQ64(B), GD25LQ128)
Signed-off-by: Roman Titov titovroman@gmail.com
flashchips.c | 197 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 196 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/flashchips.c b/flashchips.c index 8b5d1ec..31541ea 100644 --- a/flashchips.c +++ b/flashchips.c @@ -5466,6 +5466,123 @@ const struct flashchip flashchips[] = {
{ .vendor = "GigaDevice",
.name = "GD25LQ40",.bustype = BUS_SPI,.manufacture_id = GIGADEVICE_ID,.model_id = GIGADEVICE_GD25LQ40,.total_size = 512,.page_size = 256,/* OTP: 1024B total, 256B reserved; read 0x48; write 0x42, erase 0x44 */.feature_bits = FEATURE_WRSR_WREN | FEATURE_OTP,.tested = TEST_OK_PREW,
According to the line above and the respective ones later, you had all that hardware at hand and tested it successfully. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think that's the case ;)
.probe = probe_spi_rdid,.probe_timing = TIMING_ZERO,.block_erasers ={{.eraseblocks = { {4 * 1024, 128} },.block_erase = spi_block_erase_20,}, {.eraseblocks = { {32 * 1024, 16} },.block_erase = spi_block_erase_52,}, {.eraseblocks = { {64 * 1024, 8} },.block_erase = spi_block_erase_d8,}, {.eraseblocks = { {512 * 1024, 1} },.block_erase = spi_block_erase_60,}, {.eraseblocks = { {512 * 1024, 1} },.block_erase = spi_block_erase_c7,}},.printlock = spi_prettyprint_status_register_bp4_srwd,.unlock = spi_disable_blockprotect_bp4_srwd, /* TODO: 2nd status reg (read with 0x35) */.write = spi_chip_write_256,.read = spi_chip_read,
The chips support multiple read and opcodes (unlike flashrom yet!). We note that at least for new chips by adding a comment like this: /* Fast read (0x0B) and multi I/O supported */ (cf. with similar comments throughout the file).
.voltage = {1700, 1950},
It should actually be 1695, 1950 instead. This is also an error in the existing definition of the GD25LQ32.
Apart from these repeated copy & paste errors it looks good. Please fix them so that I can commit your first flashrom contribution, thanks!
Have you noticed any differences between the GD25LQ64 and its B revision?