On 01.04.2010 20:12, Michael Karcher wrote:
Remove blockwise write for i82802ab chips. It will be reintroduced in post-0.9.2 in a generic way. This is needed to fix FWH-like chips with non-uniform sectors.
These are: Intel 28F001 Sharp LHF00L04 ST M50FW002 ST M50LPW116
Add IDs for Intel 28F004/28F400
I have modified the changelog a bit.
Signed-off-by: Michael Karcher flashrom@mkarcher.dialup.fu-berlin.de
With the comments below addressed, this is Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net
82802ab.c | 54 +++++++++------------------- flash.h | 2 +- flashchips.c | 110 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ flashchips.h | 4 ++ 4 files changed, 133 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-) create mode 100755 dmidecode
diff --git a/82802ab.c b/82802ab.c index aa7e45e..0d1bd1a 100644 --- a/82802ab.c +++ b/82802ab.c @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ int probe_82802ab(struct flashchip *flash) chipaddr bios = flash->virtual_memory; uint8_t id1, id2; uint8_t flashcontent1, flashcontent2;
- int shifted = (flash->feature_bits & FEATURE_ADDR_SHIFTED) != 0;
Can we rely on the compiler to set shifted=1 if the feature bit is set? We assign a boolean value to int shifted, and AFAIK the compiler is free to use pretty much any value here as long as that value gives reliable results (could be 0x2, could be 0xffffffff). What about the following code instead?
+ int shifted = (flash->feature_bits & FEATURE_ADDR_SHIFTED) ? 1 : 0;
/* Reset to get a clean state */ chip_writeb(0xFF, bios); @@ -178,44 +179,25 @@ void write_page_82802ab(chipaddr bios, uint8_t *src, int write_82802ab(struct flashchip *flash, uint8_t *buf) { int i;
int total_size = flash->total_size * 1024;
int page_size = flash->page_size; chipaddr bios = flash->virtual_memory;
uint8_t *tmpbuf = malloc(page_size);
if (!tmpbuf) {
msg_cerr("Could not allocate memory!\n");exit(1);
- if (erase_flash(flash)) {
msg_cerr("ERASE FAILED!\n");return -1;
- msg_cinfo("Programming page: \n");
- for (i = 0; i < total_size / page_size; i++) {
[...]
- msg_cinfo("Programming page: ");
- for (i = 0; i < flash->total_size; i++) {
You change the write chunk size from page_size to 1024. Does "programming page" still make sense, or should it be "programming chunk at"?
diff --git a/dmidecode b/dmidecode new file mode 100755 index 0000000..e69de29
Uhhh. Please make sure you don't commit dmidecode by accident.
diff --git a/flashchips.c b/flashchips.c index 2dbc1e0..a9b6551 100644 --- a/flashchips.c +++ b/flashchips.c @@ -2385,6 +2385,116 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = {
- {
.vendor = "Intel",.name = "28F400BV/CV/CE-B",.bustype = CHIP_BUSTYPE_PARALLEL,.manufacture_id = INTEL_ID,.model_id = P28F400BB,- },
- {
.vendor = "Intel",.name = "28F400BV/CV/CE-B",
Should be ...CE-T unless I'm mistaken.
.bustype = CHIP_BUSTYPE_PARALLEL,.manufacture_id = INTEL_ID,.model_id = P28F400BT,
A compile test and run test with -p dummy (which triggers the automatic chipdefinition selftest) would be appreciated before committing just to make sure I didn't overlook anything problematic.
Regards, Carl-Daniel