Am 22.07.2011 12:54 schrieb Uwe Hermann:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:55:32PM +0200, Stefan Tauner wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 23:27:34 +0200
> Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006(a)gmx.net> wrote:
>> Am 21.07.2011 17:54 schrieb Stefan Tauner:
>>> previously the dummies were initialized to be empty (all ones), which makes
>>> erasing altogether. with this patch the default is to fill it with random
bytes instead and the
>>> old behavior can be enforced with stating "empty=yes" on the
>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner(a)student.tuwien.ac.at>
>> Does the following not work for you?
>> dd if=/dev/urandom bs=1k count=4k of=oldimage.bin
>> flashrom -p dummy:emulate=SST25VF032B,image=oldimage.bin -w newimage.bin
Works fine here, but having a commandline option such as the
"content=..." in the updated patch is worthwhile IMHO, it saves the user
quite some unneeded hassle to create dummy images on a filesystem,
Which user? Nobody except the active flashrom developers will ever test
dummyflasher on DOS, and I hope our skills are not so limited that
copying oldimage.bin to the same directory as flashrom.exe is impossible
which is possibly even a bit harder on DOS or elsewhere due to
dd and so on.
Then generate it on Linux where you cross-compile the DOS binary.
Also in the qflashrom GUI I'd personally like to be able
to present the user with a drop-down of possible dummy chip contents
(which are autogenerated by libflashrom).
You could use the pattern generator which is already present in
flashrom, and write the generated pattern to a file which is supplied
for flashing. That way, you can use those patterns for real programmers
as well. The current content=/empty= proposal has zero benefits outside
dummyflasher, and for that you can use dd or the pattern generator anyway.
The "image=" option should stay of course, it's very
useful too, e.g.
for specially crafted test images etc. But for a few simple cases such
as 0x00, 0xff, random, etc. the "content=" option makes sense, IMHO.
> did i mention that the man page needs an update? :P
That too, yes.
I should have sent a man page patch for that last night. No idea why it
didn't show up. Let me check and resend.