[flashrom] [PATCH] Support device lists for programmers without PCI/USB IDs

Kyösti Mälkki kyosti.malkki at gmail.com
Thu Apr 4 06:57:23 CEST 2013

On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 02:07 +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> Am 03.04.2013 01:11 schrieb Kyösti Mälkki:
> > On Wed, 2013-04-03 at 00:03 +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> >> Based on an idea by Kyösti Mälkki.
> >>
> > Except that you dropped the .private field in the dev_entry struct which
> > made big difference.
> Added a .devdata field for this purpose.

That will help.

> > The if/elseif/else -approach used in ft2232_spi to parse type= command
> > line parameter force a redundant listing of the model strings and you do
> > not list the supported model strings verbatim in flashrom -L output.
> AFAICS you didn't rework ft2232_spi either. Admittedly the possible
> changes for ft2232_spi are really not easy (one USB ID corresponds to
> two types, the other USB IDs correspond to one type each).

The patch (which never appeared on the mailing list, BTW) was about
fixing rayer_spi to list the different pinout models with flashrom -L.
It wasn't a solution to any other programmer hardware. With the existing
state of review queue, I felt it was better not to suggest global
changes. Unfortunately, this dev_entry came up during the discussion.

> Anyway, this version should look better.
> print_wiki.c is still not fully converted.
> The output of flashrom -L for non-PCI/USB devices should look better
> now, but I'd appreciate a review of the changes.

I need a conclusion on patches 3920-3924 first to regain motivation. I
received Your comments on #flashrom previously, but since then You
posted these partially conflicting and incompatible patches on the list.

I would suggest you keep track of the effort (as in time spent for
review, rewrite, discussion) of this dev_entry/rayer_spi change thing.
If You finally get someone to rebase them, and You collect new Tested-By
lines, evaluate if re-ordering the patchset as You have suggested was
worth the added effort or if it just exhausted development resources.

I will probably return to this topic in an average flashrom review
feedback time.


More information about the flashrom mailing list