On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 00:56:08 +0200 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]> wrote:
> Am 08.06.2011 04:55 schrieb Stefan Tauner: > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <[email protected]> > > --- > > ichspi.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++------------------------ > > 1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/ichspi.c b/ichspi.c > > index 12727d1..dff6f32 100644 > > --- a/ichspi.c > > +++ b/ichspi.c > > @@ -913,37 +913,30 @@ static int ich9_run_opcode(OPCODE op, uint32_t offset, > > static int run_opcode(OPCODE op, uint32_t offset, > > uint8_t datalength, uint8_t * data) > > { > > + uint8_t maxlength = spi_programmer->max_data_read; > > > > Mh. I see what you're doing here, and it makes sense, but a comment > would be appreciated in the code: > /* The maximum data length is identical on ICH/VIA for the maximum read > length and for the maximum write length without opcode and address. > Opcode and address are stored in separate registers, not in the data > registers. The only exception applies if the opcode definition > (un)intentionally classifies said opcode incorrectly as non-address > opcode or vice versa. */ > > Any suggestions on how to improve that comment? i am not sure if this is the right place to put the second half of that comment, because i dont really see the relevance inside that function: it just delegates its inputs. OTOH it makes sense to have it at a place where both versions share code. what about putting "The maximum payload lengths for read and write operations without opcode and address are identical on ICH/VIA - using max_data_read arbitrarily here." there and the rest inside ich_spi_send_command in the "/* translate read/write array/count */" comment-block? -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
