On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:11:00 -0400 Zeus Castro <[email protected]> wrote:
> > disclamer: this is my first patch review for flashrom. > disclamer: this is my first patch ever :-) > Also, although I'm a decent programmer, my knowledge of C is pretty > limited. > > Based on the datasheets of both, the SST25LF080A is basically a larger > version of the SST25LF040A. > However, flashrom had an entry for SST25LF040A, but not for > SST25LF080A. As such, I modeled it after the entry for SST25LF040A, > and altered the values that differed. thought so. that's what i and probably all without better insights usually do. my comments were mostly meant to show what i think is the right thing to do, not in your patch alone but on the whole in the code related to it. that's probably the wrong stand when one reviews a concrete patch, but it feels natural and the reviews i received were similar. in this case my patch would probably be very similar to yours. with the exception of the .RES _REMS suffices: > >> + .name = "SST25LF080A.RES", > > i dont see a reason why you are using .RES here. > > according to the datasheet REMS work as well as RES. > > but maybe i dont know some detail. > > > >> + .probe = probe_spi_res2, > > ok, or probe_spi_rems > > > I was confused as well as to why the oscillation between REMS, RES, > and RES2 in the SST25LF040A entry, but figured that there was probably > a reason I did not understand, and copied it over in the same manner. > So, you recommend I change it all to REMS? i would remove the .RES from the name, the probe method is ok. i dont understand it either, maybe someone else can clear that up. > >> Index: flashchips.h > > > >> -#define SST_SST25VF080_REMS 0x80 /* REMS or RES opcode */ > >> +#define SST_SST25VF080_REMS 0x80 /* REMS or RES opcode, same > >> as SST25LF080A */ > > > > since the SST25VF080 is not implemented and that define is not used > > at all as far as i (and grep) can see, there is no reason to use > > the rems suffix imho. > > > Apparently SST25VFxxx and SST25LFxxx chips often share the same > REMS/RES device id. And since the one for SST25LF040A was "tacked on" > to the define for SST25VF040_REMS (since they use the same byte), and > there was an already existing define for SST25VF080_REMS (which uses > the same byte as I was planning to include for the SST25LF080A), I > just "tacked on" the SST25LF080A in the same manner. So, you recommend > I change it to read?: > #define SST_SST25LF080A 0x80" i dont like the _REMS suffix, just like above. the "same as xyz"-strategy is used all over in flashrom.h and is ok. > >> + .tested = TEST_UNTESTED, > > did you really not test it? why have you added it? > > > The only sample I have is currently inside my laptop, and flashrom > access to it is being blocked by the EC/KBC (an ENE KB926). > Besides, there are about 170 untested chips in flashchips.c, so I > figured one more, especially based on an incremental upgrade to a > probe-tested chip (SST25LF040A), wouldn't be problematic. no problem at all, i just wanted to know. > >> + .unlock = spi_disable_blockprotect, > > this will not work if bit 7 (BPL) is set > > some of the at25* write protections are similar. one might use them. > > > spi_disable_blockprotect is sufficient for this chip: > The important bits are 2-5 (although this chip only cares about 2 and > 3). If those bits are 0, the chip isn't protected. > If there is protection, spi_disable_blockprotect correctly attempts to > set them to 0, and checks if it succeeded. > The only way it can fail is if bit 7 is set and the Write Protect Pin > (WP#) is being pulled low, in which case there is nothing that can be > done (block protection cannot be disabled without reseting the chip) > and spi_disable_blockprotect returns 1. > No additional functionality is possible. > correct. i missed the point, that WRSR is not possible when BPL is set. all in all it looks ok, thanks for your effort! due to the rems/res stuff someone else needs to take a look (i dont have commit rights anyway). -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
