[flashrom] [PATCH] Support Intel 82F004BE/BV-T chip

[Michael Karcher]

Am Samstag, den 16.01.2010, 21:16 -0800 schrieb Sean Nelson:
> > +int write_28f00x(struct flashchip *flash, uint8_t *buf)
> > +{
> > +	int i, j, blocknum;
> > +	chipaddr bios = flash->virtual_memory;
> > +	int blockoffset = 0;
> > +	uint8_t *tmpbuf = malloc(flash->page_size);
> > +	struct eraseblock * blocks = flash->block_erasers[0].eraseblocks;
> > +
> > +	if (!tmpbuf) {
> > +		printf("Could not allocate memory!\n");
> > +		exit(1);
> > +	}
> > +	printf("Programming block: \n");
> > +	blocknum = 0;
> > +	for (i = 0; blocks[i].size != 0; i++) {
> > +		for(j = 0; j<  blocks[i].count; j++) {
> > +			printf("\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b"
> > +			       "\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b");
> > +			printf("%04d at address: 0x%08x", blocknum,
> > +			       blockoffset);
> > +
> > +			/* Auto Skip Blocks, which already contain the
> > +			 * desired data Faster, because we only write, what
> > +			 * has changed More secure, because blocks, which
> > +			 * are excluded (with the exclude or layout feature)
> > +			 * or not erased and rewritten; their data is
> > +			 * retained also in sudden power off situations
> > +			 */
> > +			chip_readn(tmpbuf, bios + blockoffset, blocks[i].size);
> > +			if (!memcmp((void *)(buf + blockoffset), tmpbuf,
> > +			            blocks[i].size)) {
> > +				printf("SKIPPED\n");
> > +				continue;
> > +			}
> > +
> > +			/* erase block by block and write block by block;
> > +			   this is the most secure way */
> > +			if (erase_82802ab_block(flash, blockoffset,
> > +			                        blocks[i].size)) {
> > +				fprintf(stderr, "ERASE FAILED!\n");
> > +				return -1;
> > +			}
> > +			write_page_82802ab(bios, buf + blockoffset,
> > +			                   bios + blockoffset, blocks[i].size);
> > +			blockoffset += blocks[i].size;
> > +			blocknum++;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +	printf("\n");
> > +	free(tmpbuf);
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> >    
> It's great that you used block_erasers for the chip definition, but I 
> don't understand the reason for write_28f00x. It looks exactly the same 
> as write_82802 except for using erase blocks segments. i28f00x.c is 
> completely unnecessary and extraneous in my opinion.

write_82802ab only works if all erase blocks are of the same size,
namely the page_size specified in the chip. The 28f00x chips have erase
blocks of different sizes, the 82802A/B don't.

Regards,
  Michael Karcher