[flashrom] [PATCH 3/8] ichspi: don't touch the nonexistent(?) BBAR register on ICH8

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

Am 20.08.2011 12:39 schrieb Stefan Tauner:
> Until now we implicitly accessed it via the ICH9 offset. I think
> this is an evident sign that the naming of the spi controller types
> in ichspi.c (SPI_CONTROLLER_VIA, SPI_CONTROLLER_ICH7,
> SPI_CONTROLLER_ICH9) might not cut it and we should think about
> introducing a special ICH8 one, even if its struct is identical to
> the ICH9. having most of the ICH8 code path guarded/controlled by
> SPI_CONTROLLER_ICH7 or SPI_CONTROLLER_ICH9 (depending on which is
> more similar in one situation), is an open invitation to similar
> bugs because one easily forgets that ICH8 is very special.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner at student.tuwien.ac.at>

Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net>
with comments.


> diff --git a/ichspi.c b/ichspi.c
> index 343a0af..d51a6b2 100644
> --- a/ichspi.c
> +++ b/ichspi.c
> @@ -558,20 +558,19 @@ static int program_opcodes(OPCODES *op, int enable_undo)
>   * Try to set BBAR (BIOS Base Address Register), but read back the value in case
>   * it didn't stick.
>   */
> -static void ich_set_bbar(uint32_t min_addr)
> +static void ich_set_bbar(int ich_generation, uint32_t min_addr)
>  {
>  	int bbar_off;
> -	switch (spi_programmer->type) {
> -	case SPI_CONTROLLER_ICH7:
> -	case SPI_CONTROLLER_VIA:
> +	switch (ich_generation) {
> +	case 7:
>  		bbar_off = 0x50;

Would be nice to have a #define for that.


>  		break;
> -	case SPI_CONTROLLER_ICH9:
> +	case 8:
> +		msg_perr("BBAR offset is unknown on ICH8!\n");
> +		return;
> +	default:		/* Future version might behave the same */
>  		bbar_off = ICH9_REG_BBAR;
>  		break;
> -	default:
> -		msg_perr("Unknown chipset for BBAR setting!\n");
> -		return;
>  	}
>  	
>  	ichspi_bbar = mmio_readl(ich_spibar + bbar_off) & ~BBAR_MASK;
> @@ -589,6 +588,8 @@ static void ich_set_bbar(uint32_t min_addr)
>  	 */
>  	if (ichspi_bbar != min_addr)
>  		msg_perr("Setting BBAR failed!\n");
> +	else
> +		msg_pspew("Setting BBAR succeeded!\n");

Do we really need that message? It should be implicit from the absence
of "...failed", and msg_pspew is used almost never nowadays, so it
mostly bloats the binary without real benefit.


>  }
>  
>  /* Read len bytes from the fdata/spid register into the data array.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel

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