Am Donnerstag, den 01.04.2010, 12:56 +0200 schrieb Carl-Daniel Hailfinger: > > As I really like the rolling reflash stuff, I don't feel like ripping > > it out. On the other hand, you are right. This code is broken (as the > > FWH unification applied it to non-uniform-sized chips) right now, and > > that should be fixed before release. Having it work correctly is more > > important than the rolling reflash stuff, so I can resubmit a version > > that rips out the blockwise erase/write. > >> It should solve all non-uniform sector stuff. > > Would a patch removing the rolling reflash be accepted before 0.9.2? > If you can get it tested on one previously supported 82802ab-style chip > and on one 82802ab-style chip with non-uniform sector sizes, sure. I don't have access to a previously supported 82802ab chip (with uniform sector size). Any testers? Hint: Chips that are OK for testing are: Intel 28F004S5 (the 'S' is important here) Intel 82802AB/AC ST M50FLW040A/B ST M50FLW080A/B ST M50FW016 ST M50FW040 ST M50FW080
If I get my Thinkpad T20 to boot, I can try with the 28F004 in it. It's a non-uniform flashchip supported by this patch. > Some people might complain about a feature regression, but to be honest > this code is broken for some cases right now and sometimes radical > surgery is initially painful but crucial for long-term viability. We're > definitely shooting for long-term support and development of flashrom, > and everything which makes continued development easier will get a > thumbs up from me. OK, I get you right that I should resubmit the patch without the incremental write and with "<< shifted", and have your Ack? Of course without the bogus "i28f00x" line in chipdrivers.h Regards, Michael Karcher
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
_______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
