[PATCH] Check if 82802ab probe reads real IDs

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

JEDEC ID probing checks the parity of the vendor ID and verifies that
the ID differs from the flash chip contents.
Add the same feature to 82802AB ID probing.

This should reduce the number of lines we have to look at to determine
if we're missing a chip definition or if we need a board enable. Just
use grep on the log:
grep -v "parity violation"
To narrow it down further, try:
grep -v "id1 is normal flash content, id2 is normal flash content"
And of course you want to ignore the skipped probes:
grep -v "skipped"
The remaining lines are worth examining, and if those look bogus as
well, you can bet that we just need a board enable.

Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger

Index: flashrom-82802ab_probe_check_parity/82802ab.c
===================================================================
--- flashrom-82802ab_probe_check_parity/82802ab.c	(Revision 969)
+++ flashrom-82802ab_probe_check_parity/82802ab.c	(Arbeitskopie)
@@ -47,6 +47,7 @@
 {
    chipaddr bios = flash->virtual_memory;
    uint8_t id1, id2;
+	uint8_t flashcontent1, flashcontent2;

/* Reset to get a clean state */
    chip_writeb(0xFF, bios);
@@ -64,8 +65,21 @@

programmer_delay(10);

-	printf_debug("%s: id1 0x%02x, id2 0x%02x\n", __func__, id1, id2);
+	printf_debug("%s: id1 0x%02x, id2 0x%02x", __func__, id1, id2);

+	if (!oddparity(id1))
+		printf_debug(", id1 parity violation");
+
+	/* Read the product ID location again. We should now see normal flash contents. */
+	flashcontent1 = chip_readb(bios);
+	flashcontent2 = chip_readb(bios + 0x01);
+
+	if (id1 == flashcontent1)
+		printf_debug(", id1 is normal flash content");
+	if (id2 == flashcontent2)
+		printf_debug(", id2 is normal flash content");
+
+	printf_debug("\n");
    if (id1 != flash->manufacture_id || id2 != flash->model_id)
    	return 0;

[Michael Karcher]

Am Dienstag, den 23.03.2010, 00:33 +0100 schrieb Carl-Daniel Hailfinger:
> Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger

Acked-by: Michael Karcher

Looks great.

Regards,
  Michael Karcher

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

On 23.03.2010 00:41, Michael Karcher wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 23.03.2010, 00:33 +0100 schrieb Carl-Daniel Hailfinger:
> > Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
>
> Acked-by: Michael Karcher
>
> Looks great.

Thanks for the review, committed in r971.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel