On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Peter Stuge <[email protected]> wrote: > ron minnich wrote: >> > It'll work in this case but the flash chip size can also be smaller >> > than the last detected chip. >> >> I'm not sure there is any harm in the smaller case. > > Some chips are particular about the addresses that offsets are > written to and e.g. block erase will not work properly. >
Actually, I'm not that picky about the patch, but ... I doubt the flash chips themselves know or care. It's the chipsets (e.g. the sc520) that are the real trouble. I am not sure why we have that test for flashbase anyway. What's it matter? Why do we use the old value for the next value? ron -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
