On 08.01.2009 18:04, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > On 08.01.2009 18:01, Peter Stuge wrote: > >> Myles Watson wrote: >> >> >>>> @@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ >>>> .page_size = 256, >>>> .tested = TEST_OK_PREW, >>>> .probe = probe_spi_rdid, >>>> - .erase = spi_chip_erase_c7, >>>> + .erase = spi_chip_erase_60_c7, >>>> >>>> >>> It's surprising to change this one since it was tested OK. >>> Shouldn't you mark it TEST_UNTESTED now or TEST_OK_PRW? >>> >>> >> Thanks for catching that. Please revert this hunk. >> >> > > Sure, will do. Thanks Myles! >
Per the discussion with Peter, that hunk will stay as is unless anyone objects to the reason below: The new erase function calls the old erase function and if that fails it will call an alternative erase function. Worst case: The new function behaves like the old function. Best case: The new function works even if the old function fails due to chipset constraints. Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/ -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
