Re: [flashrom] [PATCH] Probe/Read tested for SST29EE020A

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

On 19.02.2010 11:08, Michael Karcher wrote:
> http://www.flashrom.org/pipermail/flashrom/2010-February/002318.html
>
> Should we commit single patches for each positive test report we get,
> or collect them?

Not sure. I think collecting them and committing once a week (or
something like that) would help keep the number of patches down.
> --- a/flashchips.c
> +++ b/flashchips.c
> @@ -3763,7 +3763,7 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = {
>       .total_size	= 256,
>       .page_size	= 128,
>       .feature_bits	= FEATURE_LONG_RESET,
> -		.tested		= TEST_UNTESTED,
> +		.tested		= TEST_OK_PR,
>       .probe		= probe_jedec,

I propose to have people test probe_jedec with full address bits and
restricted address bits. If both work, we might as well use the full
version (same for all other operations of the chip) and note it
somewhere that the upper bits are "don't care".
Maybe we'll get to a point where we can run probe_jedec just once per
chip size instead of once per size+addressbits+delay combination in
flashchips.c which would be an alternative to the current code. Long
term goal, feel free to ignore.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel

-- 
"I do consider assignment statements and pointer variables to be among
computer science's most valuable treasures."
-- Donald E. Knuth

[PATCH] Probe/Read tested for SST29EE020A

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

On 19.02.2010 11:21, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> On 19.02.2010 11:08, Michael Karcher wrote:
> > http://www.flashrom.org/pipermail/flashrom/2010-February/002318.html
> >
> > Should we commit single patches for each positive test report we get,
> > or collect them?
>
> Not sure. I think collecting them and committing once a week (or
> something like that) would help keep the number of patches down.
> > --- a/flashchips.c
> > +++ b/flashchips.c
> > @@ -3763,7 +3763,7 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = {
> >       .total_size	= 256,
> >       .page_size	= 128,
> >       .feature_bits	= FEATURE_LONG_RESET,
> > -		.tested		= TEST_UNTESTED,
> > +		.tested		= TEST_OK_PR,
> >       .probe		= probe_jedec,
>
> I propose to have people test probe_jedec with full address bits and
> restricted address bits. If both work, we might as well use the full
> version (same for all other operations of the chip) and note it
> somewhere that the upper bits are "don't care".
> Maybe we'll get to a point where we can run probe_jedec just once per
> chip size instead of once per size+addressbits+delay combination in
> flashchips.c which would be an alternative to the current code. Long
> term goal, feel free to ignore.

Michael, can you commit this one?
Not sure if svn did the merges correctly, so it would be appreciated if
you could make sure that the correct chip gets the status update.

Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[e-mail]>

Regards,
Carl-Daniel

-- 
http://www.hailfinger.org/