[flashrom] [PATCH] 82802ab and stm50flw0x0x cleanup
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net
Fri Mar 19 19:14:24 CET 2010
On 19.03.2010 18:54, Sean Nelson wrote:
> --- a/flashchips.c
> +++ b/flashchips.c
> @@ -2318,124 +2318,127 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = {
> .page_size = 128 * 1024, /* 8k + 2x4k + 112k */
> .feature_bits = 0,
> .tested = TEST_BAD_WRITE,
> .probe = probe_jedec,
> .probe_timing = TIMING_ZERO, /* Datasheet has no timing info specified */
> .block_erasers =
> {
> {
> .eraseblocks = {
> {8 * 1024, 1},
> {4 * 1024, 2},
> {112 * 1024, 1},
> },
> - .block_erase = erase_82802ab_block,
> + .block_erase = erase_block_82802ab,
> },
> },
> .write = NULL,
> .read = read_memmapped,
> },
>
> {
> .vendor = "Intel",
> .name = "28F001BX-T",
> .bustype = CHIP_BUSTYPE_PARALLEL,
> .manufacture_id = INTEL_ID,
> .model_id = P28F001BXT,
> .total_size = 128,
> .page_size = 128 * 1024, /* 112k + 2x4k + 8k */
> .feature_bits = 0,
> .tested = TEST_BAD_WRITE,
> .probe = probe_jedec,
> .probe_timing = TIMING_ZERO, /* Datasheet has no timing info specified */
> .block_erasers =
> {
> {
> .eraseblocks = {
> {112 * 1024, 1},
> {4 * 1024, 2},
> {8 * 1024, 1},
> },
> - .block_erase = erase_82802ab_block,
> + .block_erase = erase_block_82802ab,
> },
> },
> .write = NULL,
> .read = read_memmapped,
> },
What about unlocking for the two chips above? Not needed? No docs?
Broken anyway, so don't care?
Please make sure to change the status of 82802AB, 82802AC, M50FW040,
M50FW080 to TEST_OK_PR (write function has been changed indirectly with
your patch).
It would be cool if you could delete sharplhf00l04.c as well, but feel
free to do that in a followup patch.
With the points above addressed or answered, this is
Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net>
Regards,
Carl-Daniel
--
"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