[PATCH] Change prefix of chip id #defines

[Mattias Mattsson]

This patch changes the prefix of chip constant #defines in the following way:

AM_nnnnnnn -> AMD_AMnnnnnnn
AT_nnnnnnn -> ATMEL_ATnnnnnnn
EN_nnnnnnn -> EON_ENnnnnnnn
MBMnnnnnnn -> FUJITSU_MBMnnnnnnn
MX_ID -> MACRONIX_ID
MX_nnnnnnn -> MACRONIX_MXnnnnnnn
PMC_nnnnnnn -> PMC_PMnnnnnnn
SST_nnnnnnn -> SST_SSTnnnnnnn

It leaves the Intel #defines alone because there is another pending
patch for that:
http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/1937/

Some background discussion here:
http://www.flashrom.org/pipermail/flashrom/2010-July/004059.html

Signed-off-by: Mattias Mattsson

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

On 15.09.2010 04:04, Mattias Mattsson wrote:
> This patch changes the prefix of chip constant #defines in the following way:
>
> AM_nnnnnnn -> AMD_AMnnnnnnn
> AT_nnnnnnn -> ATMEL_ATnnnnnnn
> EN_nnnnnnn -> EON_ENnnnnnnn
> MBMnnnnnnn -> FUJITSU_MBMnnnnnnn
> MX_ID -> MACRONIX_ID
> MX_nnnnnnn -> MACRONIX_MXnnnnnnn
> PMC_nnnnnnn -> PMC_PMnnnnnnn
> SST_nnnnnnn -> SST_SSTnnnnnnn
>
> It leaves the Intel #defines alone because there is another pending
> patch for that:
> http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/1937/
>
> Some background discussion here:
> http://www.flashrom.org/pipermail/flashrom/2010-July/004059.html
>
> Signed-off-by: Mattias Mattsson
> .name		= "Am29LV081B",
> .model_id	= AMD_AM29LV080B,

This looks odd. Chip name and model_id don't match.
> EN25B*

The whole EN25B family seems to be in desperate need of
FEATURE_EVIL_TWIN unless the IDs are incorrect. Admittedly your patch
doesn't make it worse, but this area is in desperate need of fixing.
> .name		= "Pm39LV010",
> .model_id	= PMC_PM39F010,	/* Pm39LV010 and Pm39F010 have identical IDs but different voltage */

name/model_id mismatch. Besides that, we probably want all names in .name
> .name		= "SST25LF040A.RES",
> .model_id	= SST_SST25VF040_REMS,

SST25LF040A vs. SST25LF040, and RES vs. REMS. Not your fault, but we
should fix that as well.
> .name		= "SST28SF040A",
> .model_id	= SST_SST28SF040,

SST28SF040A vs. SST28SF040.

Same problem for SST39SF010A/SST39SF010 and SST39SF020A/SST39SF020.

Side note: The Sanyo LF25FW203A has SANYO_LE25FW203A. Is "LE25" or LF25"
correct?

Rest looks good. Not sure if we want to fix the problems above in a
separate patch, and keep this patch a pure conversion with no semantic
changes. IMHO the two-patch solution is better, so please commit this
patch as-is.

Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger

Regards,
Carl-Daniel

[Mattias Mattsson]

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 17:49, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
 wrote:
> On 15.09.2010 04:04, Mattias Mattsson wrote:
> > This patch changes the prefix of chip constant #defines in the following way:
> >
> > AM_nnnnnnn -> AMD_AMnnnnnnn
> > AT_nnnnnnn -> ATMEL_ATnnnnnnn
> > EN_nnnnnnn -> EON_ENnnnnnnn
> > MBMnnnnnnn -> FUJITSU_MBMnnnnnnn
> > MX_ID -> MACRONIX_ID
> > MX_nnnnnnn -> MACRONIX_MXnnnnnnn
> > PMC_nnnnnnn -> PMC_PMnnnnnnn
> > SST_nnnnnnn -> SST_SSTnnnnnnn
> >
> > It leaves the Intel #defines alone because there is another pending
> > patch for that:
> > http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/1937/
> >
> > Some background discussion here:
> > http://www.flashrom.org/pipermail/flashrom/2010-July/004059.html
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mattias Mattsson
> >
> > .name           = "Am29LV081B",
> > .model_id       = AMD_AM29LV080B,
>
> This looks odd. Chip name and model_id don't match.
> > EN25B*
>
> The whole EN25B family seems to be in desperate need of
> FEATURE_EVIL_TWIN unless the IDs are incorrect. Admittedly your patch
> doesn't make it worse, but this area is in desperate need of fixing.
> > .name           = "Pm39LV010",
> > .model_id       = PMC_PM39F010, /* Pm39LV010 and Pm39F010 have identical IDs but different voltage */
>
> name/model_id mismatch. Besides that, we probably want all names in .name
> > .name           = "SST25LF040A.RES",
> > .model_id       = SST_SST25VF040_REMS,
>
> SST25LF040A vs. SST25LF040, and RES vs. REMS. Not your fault, but we
> should fix that as well.
> > .name           = "SST28SF040A",
> > .model_id       = SST_SST28SF040,
>
> SST28SF040A vs. SST28SF040.
>
> Same problem for SST39SF010A/SST39SF010 and SST39SF020A/SST39SF020.
>
> Side note: The Sanyo LF25FW203A has SANYO_LE25FW203A. Is "LE25" or LF25"
> correct?
>
> Rest looks good. Not sure if we want to fix the problems above in a
> separate patch, and keep this patch a pure conversion with no semantic
> changes. IMHO the two-patch solution is better, so please commit this
> patch as-is.
>
> Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger

Thanks, committed as r1175.

Also, many thanks for your comments! I will look at them separately.

-mattias