Am Sonntag, den 19.06.2011, 19:11 +0200 schrieb Uwe Hermann: > On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 12:29:18AM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > > >>>> Look at the return value of wait_82802ab() > > >>>> Index: sst49lfxxxc.c > > >>>> =================================================================== > > >>>> --- sst49lfxxxc.c (revision 993) > > >>>> +++ sst49lfxxxc.c (working copy) > > >>>> @@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ > > >>>> chip_writeb(0xD0, bios + address); > > >>>> > > >>>> status = wait_82802ab(bios); > > >>>> + print_status_82802ab(status); > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >> [...] > > >> basically a good idea, but printing one status dump per erased block > > >> seems a bit excessive, even in verbose mode, as there are some chips > > >> with 4K sector size. Could you limit status printing to "status != > > >> 0x80", as this is "ready, no error bits"? > > >> > > > That's what the 82802ab and sharp lhf00l04 do, too. So if you think the > > > behavior should be changed, you should change it in all three places. > > > > That's the plan. > > In the mean-time I guess we can get this in (r1347), if only to reduce > the patch queue size.
Getting this in is a good idea, as IIRC this is the point gcc 4.6 disliked (for not using the status variable). Not printing the chip status 512 times also is a good ides, so I sent a patch that implements "print status only if abnormal". Sorry for working against getting the patch queue small, but we shouldn't forget it. BTW: the 82802ab and lhf00l04 *block* erase procedures operate on blocks around 64k, while the sst49 *sector* erase procedure that just was changed in this commit is for 4k sectors, so dumping the status here is much more excessive as in the other cases - probably that's the reason why the status printing was not in. Regards, Michael Karcher _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
