[PATCH] Fix W29EE011 probing

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

Fix W29EE011 probing.

Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger

Index: flashrom-probe_w29ee011_fix/w29ee011.c
===================================================================
--- flashrom-probe_w29ee011_fix/w29ee011.c	(Revision 1390)
+++ flashrom-probe_w29ee011_fix/w29ee011.c	(Arbeitskopie)
@@ -22,16 +22,19 @@
 #include "flash.h"
 #include "chipdrivers.h"

+/* According to the Winbond W29EE011, W29EE012, W29C010M, W29C011A
+ * datasheets this is the only valid probe function for those chips.
+ */
 int probe_w29ee011(struct flashchip *flash)
 {
    chipaddr bios = flash->virtual_memory;
    uint8_t id1, id2;

-	if (!chip_to_probe || strcmp(chip_to_probe, "W29EE011")) {
-		msg_cdbg("Probing disabled for Winbond W29EE011 because "
+	if (!chip_to_probe || strcmp(chip_to_probe, flash->name)) {
+		msg_cdbg("Probing disabled for Winbond W29EE* because "
    		     "the probing sequence puts the AMIC A49LF040A in "
-			     "a funky state. Use 'flashrom -c W29EE011' if you "
-			     "have a board with this chip.\n");
+			     "a funky state. Use 'flashrom -c %s' if you "
+			     "have a board with this chip.\n", flash->name);
    	return 0;
    }

Index: flashrom-probe_w29ee011_fix/flashchips.c
===================================================================
--- flashrom-probe_w29ee011_fix/flashchips.c	(Revision 1390)
+++ flashrom-probe_w29ee011_fix/flashchips.c	(Arbeitskopie)
@@ -8323,7 +8323,7 @@

{
    	.vendor		= "Winbond",
-		.name		= "W29C010(M)/W29C011A/W29EE011/W29EE012",
+		.name		= "W29C010(M)/W29C011A/W29EE011/W29EE012-old",
    	.bustype	= CHIP_BUSTYPE_PARALLEL,
    	.manufacture_id	= WINBOND_ID,
    	.model_id	= WINBOND_W29C010,

[Stefan Tauner]

On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 04:06:15 +0200
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger  wrote:
> msg_cdbg("Probing disabled for Winbond W29EE* because "

the comment above the function and the chip's .name indicate that this
will be shown for "W29EE011, W29EE012, W29C010M, W29C011A", hence it
should be "Probing disabled for some Winbond W29* chips because " or
just use the actual chip name dynamically like you do for the -c
parameter?
> .name		= "W29C010(M)/W29C011A/W29EE011/W29EE012-old",

why -old? what about the -non-old version?

rest looks ok although i can't test it...
Acked-by: Stefan Tauner

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

Am 26.07.2011 13:03 schrieb Stefan Tauner:
> Acked-by: Stefan Tauner

Thanks for the review! I added some minor cosmetic changes as discussed
and committed in r1391.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel