On 23.09.2009 15:28, Luc Verhaegen wrote: > On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 02:11:27PM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > >> On 23.09.2009 13:44, Luc Verhaegen wrote: >> >>> Can we not consider E as tested here? I believe you got ulf to test >>> both, and with the board enable, even the 64k block erase succeeded. >>> >>> >> Well, I didn't have him test the erase functions inside the new >> eraseblock framework, I only used the old framework. The effect (comands >> executed) should be identical, though. If you think that is good enough, >> I'll resend without the PRW change for this chip, but with the added >> definition of PRW (I need that one for a boatload of other eraseblock >> changes). >> > > Ok, with just that one change: > Acked-by: Luc Verhaegen <[email protected]> >
Thanks, changed and committed in r731. > Also, we might want to have Ulf test this if you are still not entirely > sure about this code. > I'm sure about the code. The additional test was just in case we want paranoid checks. Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/ _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
