On 18.03.2010 23:21, Sean Nelson wrote: > change chip specific functions towards functions found in 82820ab.c >
Please rework (see below). > change unprotect_28sf040(chipaddr bios) to unlock_28sf040(struct flashchip > *flash) > OK. > add unlock_stm50flw0x0x > OK. > Signed-off-by: Sean Nelson <[email protected]> > Sorry, this needs more work. erase_block_stm50flw0x0x -> erase_82802ab_block is an invalid conversion because erase_82802ab_block has included unlocking code and erase_block_stm50flw0x0x doesn't have that code. One possible option is to remove the unlocking stuff from the 82802 function and create a wrapper erase_82802ab_block that unlocks and then calls erase_82802ab_block_without_unlock. The replacement would then be erase_block_stm50flw0x0x -> erase_82802ab_block_without_unlock (well, my naming suggestions are to be taken with a pinch of salt). Similar problems exist with write_stm50flw0x0x -> write_82802ab. Oh well. I just sent a patch which should eliminate most of my concerns above. I'm open to acking your patch once we have a clear way forward which doesn't involve breaking unlocking. I didn't review the SST49 and SHARPLHF stuff yet. Regards, Carl-Daniel -- "I do consider assignment statements and pointer variables to be among computer science's most valuable treasures." -- Donald E. Knuth _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
