On 05.06.2009 02:42, [email protected] wrote: > New Revision: 573 > > Modified: > trunk/sst49lfxxxc.c > Log: > Actually enable the protection register debug output on > SST49LF160C and similar chips if -V is supplied. > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Hermann <[email protected]> > Acked-by: Myles Watson<[email protected]> > > Modified: trunk/sst49lfxxxc.c > =================================================================== > --- trunk/sst49lfxxxc.c 2009-06-04 19:25:54 UTC (rev 572) > +++ trunk/sst49lfxxxc.c 2009-06-05 00:42:18 UTC (rev 573) > @@ -38,28 +38,37 @@ > > for (i = 0; left > 65536; i++, left -= 65536) { > - //printf("lockbits at address=0x%08lx is 0x%01x\n", (unsigned > long)0xFFC00000 - size + (i * 65536) + 2, *(bios + (i * 65536) + 2) ); > + printf_debug("lockbits at address=%p is 0x%01x\n", > + (void *)(0xffc00000 - size + (i * 65536) + 2), > + chip_readb(bios + (i * 65536) + 2)); > chip_writeb(bits, bios + (i * 65536) + 2); >
Sorry, I don't get it. Why do you use a base of 0xffc00000 - size for printing the address and bios for printing the contents? There's flash->virtual_memory and flash->virtual_registers. Any reason you recalculate flash->virtual_registers even though it is passed in? Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/ -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
