On 19.03.2010 18:54, Sean Nelson wrote:
> --- a/flashchips.c
> +++ b/flashchips.c
> @@ -2318,124 +2318,127 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = {
> .page_size = 128 * 1024, /* 8k + 2x4k + 112k */
> .feature_bits = 0,
> .tested = TEST_BAD_WRITE,
> .probe = probe_jedec,
> .probe_timing = TIMING_ZERO, /* Datasheet has no timing info
> specified */
> .block_erasers =
> {
> {
> .eraseblocks = {
> {8 * 1024, 1},
> {4 * 1024, 2},
> {112 * 1024, 1},
> },
> - .block_erase = erase_82802ab_block,
> + .block_erase = erase_block_82802ab,
> },
> },
> .write = NULL,
> .read = read_memmapped,
> },
>
> {
> .vendor = "Intel",
> .name = "28F001BX-T",
> .bustype = CHIP_BUSTYPE_PARALLEL,
> .manufacture_id = INTEL_ID,
> .model_id = P28F001BXT,
> .total_size = 128,
> .page_size = 128 * 1024, /* 112k + 2x4k + 8k */
> .feature_bits = 0,
> .tested = TEST_BAD_WRITE,
> .probe = probe_jedec,
> .probe_timing = TIMING_ZERO, /* Datasheet has no timing info
> specified */
> .block_erasers =
> {
> {
> .eraseblocks = {
> {112 * 1024, 1},
> {4 * 1024, 2},
> {8 * 1024, 1},
> },
> - .block_erase = erase_82802ab_block,
> + .block_erase = erase_block_82802ab,
> },
> },
> .write = NULL,
> .read = read_memmapped,
> },
What about unlocking for the two chips above? Not needed? No docs?
Broken anyway, so don't care?
Please make sure to change the status of 82802AB, 82802AC, M50FW040,
M50FW080 to TEST_OK_PR (write function has been changed indirectly with
your patch).
It would be cool if you could delete sharplhf00l04.c as well, but feel
free to do that in a followup patch.
With the points above addressed or answered, this is
Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]>
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
