On 29.06.2008 13:26, Stefan Reinauer wrote: > Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > >> On 29.06.2008 12:35, Stefan Reinauer wrote: >> >>> Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: >>> >>>>> Yes, something along the line. Alongside with this I want to clean up >>>>> use of struct flashchip >>>>> for flashes[] but I would really like to get the current change in the >>>>> tree yet. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I'm not a fan of committing code which will be changed shortly >>>> afterwards, but... >>>> >>>> >>> Release early, release often, yes? ;-) I can keep this in our internal >>> repository for a while until it's ripened, but I fear it will decay if >>> it's only floating around as a patch and not in the repo (see Rudolf's >>> SPI patch, though that can still easily be applied for VIA systems) >>> >>> >> Actually, to give Rudolf the chance to adapt VIA chipset support in >> flashrom to the new code I'd like to keep big commits away from ichspi.c >> until VIA support is merged. >> >> > I have his changes in my tree. If this is going in, I can commit his > stuff right afterwards. >
Do you have them integrated into ichspi.c? IIRC Rudolf wanted to merge his ICH7/VT8237S code into ichspi.c, but the patch he sent had it as a separate file due to time constraints. >> I always thought that virtual_memory is exactly the location of the >> flash chip in the memory map. If not, what's the point of virtual_memory? >> >> > * virtual_memory is the flash chip mapped into the flashrom process' > memory map. It's an arbitrary address valid for that one process. > > * physical_memory is the address on the "outside" memory bus of the cpu. > that's where all the PCI bars live etc. > > Those are completely distinct address spaces, and usually nothing > (except some memory chunks) from the physical address space is visible > in the virtual address space. flashrom can not access the flashchip, > unless it maps a piece of physical memory (0xfff00000-0xffffffff for > example) to its virtual address space. That's why we need to mmap to > actually see it. But the address we get from mmap does not have any > descriptive character, it's a mere handle for us to access that physical > memory. > I thought we use mmap(,,,MAP_FIXED,,) which would have ensured virtual_memory and physical_memory being identical. Looking at the source it seems that I misremembered the actual mmap call, so your statement makes a lot of sense and I agree with it. Thanks for the explanation. Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/ -- coreboot mailing list [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
