On 18.01.2010 09:06, Sean Nelson wrote: > Fixed patch and re-diffed against latest svn. > > Convert chips to block_erasers: > ST_M25PE10 > ST_M25PE20 > ST_M25PE40 > ST_M25PE80 > ST_M25PE16 > PMC_25LV010 > PMC_25LV016B > PMC_25LV020 > PMC_25LV040 > PMC_25LV080B > PMC_25LV512 > PMC_39F010 > PMC_49FL002 > PMC_49FL004 > SANYO_LE25FW203A > SPANSION_S25FL016A > > Added spi_block_erase_d7 for PMC chips. > > Signed-off-by: Sean Nelson <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]> Two minor comments (not blocking the commit in any way). > .vendor = "PMC", > .name = "Pm49FL002", > .bustype = CHIP_BUSTYPE_LPC|CHIP_BUSTYPE_FWH, /* A/A > Mux*/ > .manufacture_id = PMC_ID_NOPREFIX, > .model_id = PMC_49FL002, > .total_size = 256, > .page_size = 16 * 1024, > .feature_bits = FEATURE_REGISTERMAP, > - .tested = TEST_OK_PREW, > + .tested = TEST_OK_PRW, > .probe = probe_jedec, > .probe_timing = TIMING_ZERO, /* routine is wrapper to > probe_jedec (pm49fl00x.c) */ > - .erase = erase_49fl00x, > + .erase = NULL, /* Was: erase_49fl00x */ I don't get the point of this comment. Is it because the original function messes with the locking regs and the new function doesn't? > .vendor = "PMC", > .name = "Pm49FL004", > .bustype = CHIP_BUSTYPE_LPC|CHIP_BUSTYPE_FWH, /* A/A > Mux*/ > .manufacture_id = PMC_ID_NOPREFIX, > .model_id = PMC_49FL004, > .total_size = 512, > .page_size = 64 * 1024, > .feature_bits = FEATURE_REGISTERMAP, > - .tested = TEST_OK_PREW, > + .tested = TEST_OK_PRW, > .probe = probe_jedec, > .probe_timing = TIMING_ZERO, /* routine is wrapper to > probe_jedec (pm49fl00x.c) */ > - .erase = erase_49fl00x, > + .erase = NULL, /* Was: erase_49fl00x */ Same here. Regards, Carl-Daniel -- Developer quote of the year: "We are juggling too many chainsaws and flaming arrows and tigers." _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
