Am 15.03.2011 16:29 schrieb Stefan Tauner:
Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner<[email protected]>
---
chipdrivers.h | 3 +--
flashchips.c | 6 ++++--
spi25.c | 10 +---------
3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/chipdrivers.h b/chipdrivers.h
index c01ab7a..dc46fe1 100644
--- a/chipdrivers.h
+++ b/chipdrivers.h
@@ -45,13 +45,12 @@ int spi_chip_read(struct flashchip *flash, uint8_t *buf,
int start, int len);
uint8_t spi_read_status_register(void);
int spi_prettyprint_status_register_at25df(struct flashchip *flash);
int spi_prettyprint_status_register_at25df_sec(struct flashchip *flash);
-int spi_prettyprint_status_register_at25f(struct flashchip *flash);
+int spi_prettyprint_status_register_at25f512b(struct flashchip *flash);
int spi_prettyprint_status_register_at25fs010(struct flashchip *flash);
int spi_prettyprint_status_register_at25fs040(struct flashchip *flash);
int spi_disable_blockprotect(struct flashchip *flash);
int spi_disable_blockprotect_at25df(struct flashchip *flash);
int spi_disable_blockprotect_at25df_sec(struct flashchip *flash);
-int spi_disable_blockprotect_at25f(struct flashchip *flash);
int spi_disable_blockprotect_at25fs010(struct flashchip *flash);
int spi_disable_blockprotect_at25fs040(struct flashchip *flash);
int spi_byte_program(int addr, uint8_t databyte);
diff --git a/flashchips.c b/flashchips.c
index 753a094..29a4da0 100644
--- a/flashchips.c
+++ b/flashchips.c
@@ -1612,8 +1612,10 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = {
.block_erase = spi_block_erase_c7,
}
},
- .printlock = spi_prettyprint_status_register_at25f,
- .unlock = spi_disable_blockprotect_at25f,
+ .printlock = spi_prettyprint_status_register_at25f512b,
+ /* spi_disable_blockprotect_at25df is not really the right way
to do
+ * this, but the side effects of said function work here as
well. */
For disabling block protection of SPI chips we have quite a few
functions where the side effects work just fine, but the comments inside
the function are not correct. Not sure if we have to list this in a
comment here or rather at the top of this unlock function because it is
used for multiple chips.
I see you just wanted to avoid the existing wrapper function and that
sort of makes sense... I'm undecided here.
+ .unlock = spi_disable_blockprotect_at25df,
.write = spi_chip_write_256,
.read = spi_chip_read,
},
diff --git a/spi25.c b/spi25.c
index c774032..5d73411 100644
--- a/spi25.c
+++ b/spi25.c
@@ -394,7 +394,7 @@ int spi_prettyprint_status_register_at25df_sec(struct
flashchip *flash)
return spi_prettyprint_status_register_at25df(flash);
}
-int spi_prettyprint_status_register_at25f(struct flashchip *flash)
+int spi_prettyprint_status_register_at25f512b(struct flashchip *flash)
_at25f was originally intended as generic version usable by more AT25*
chips. I have a conflicting patch for this region, will repost it so we
can discuss how to merge them.
{
uint8_t status;
@@ -1123,14 +1123,6 @@ int spi_disable_blockprotect_at25df_sec(struct flashchip
*flash)
return spi_disable_blockprotect_at25df(flash);
}
-int spi_disable_blockprotect_at25f(struct flashchip *flash)
-{
- /* spi_disable_blockprotect_at25df is not really the right way to do
- * this, but the side effects of said function work here as well.
- */
- return spi_disable_blockprotect_at25df(flash);
-}
-
int spi_disable_blockprotect_at25fs010(struct flashchip *flash)
{
uint8_t status;
--
http://www.hailfinger.org/
_______________________________________________
flashrom mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
