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

Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net
Fri Feb 19 11:21:51 CET 2010

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.


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

More information about the flashrom mailing list