[flashrom] [PATCH 3/3] Refine physical address mapping of flash chips.

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

Am 16.08.2014 01:43 schrieb Stefan Tauner:
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 01:09:44 +0200
> Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net> wrote:
>
>>> -#if CONFIG_INTERNAL == 1
>>> -	if (programmer_table[programmer].map_flash_region == physmap)
>>> -		snprintf(location, sizeof(location), "at physical address 0x%lx", base);
>>> -	else
>>> -#endif
>>> -		snprintf(location, sizeof(location), "on %s", programmer_table[programmer].name);
>>> -  
>> That info should not have disappeared, and we may soon have to extend it
>> for funny constellations like two chips in a programmer (EC flash and
>> chipset flash for laptops).
> If this is an important detail we want to tell the user then we need to
> define a proper interface... there is no reason at all to know the base
> address in the probing function and that's why I have removed that bit
> completely, and because I don't see how this is important at all at the
> msg_pinfo level(!).

What about dual flash chip setups in the FWH/LPC case? There we have
multiple flash chips at different addresses, e.g. a 2 MByte chip at
4G-4M and a 2 MByte chip at 4G-2M. Yes, such hardware exists. It's the
reason we have the feature to optionally set FWH IDSEL on ICH for
misconfigured boards of that type. Admittedly the LPC case is a bit less
weird and works by strapping LPC chips to the correct address.


> I would be ok with printing the programmer (well,
> the master would be better if that's already possible... do they
> have names already? :) ... but the base address printing needs to die or
> be moved elsewhere.

Indeed, we should print the master name, not the programmer name. I
thought I had a patch doing that, but digging through my archive it
seems I can't find that patch anymore and/or it was a figment of my
imagination.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel