Am 30.06.2011 19:54 schrieb Carl-Daniel Hailfinger: > Am 24.06.2011 16:53 schrieb Stefan Tauner: > >> This can be used in various situations (including one in the upcoming SFDP >> patch) and >> removes one FIXME in current HEAD. Needed to move check_block_eraser (which >> checks a >> single eraser) up to avoid (upcoming) forward declaration(s). >> >> > Since nobody objected to the "forward declarations" RFC, I think we can > safely say that moving code around inside a file is a bad idea. Please > kill that part. > > > >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <[email protected]> >> --- >> flashrom.c | 70 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------- >> 1 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/flashrom.c b/flashrom.c >> index 6979d84..aed10aa 100644 >> --- a/flashrom.c >> +++ b/flashrom.c >> @@ @@ >> +/* Returns the number of well-defined erasers for a chip. >> + * The log parameter controls output. */ >> +static int check_block_erasers(const struct flashchip *flash, int log) >> >> > Hm. Can you call it count_usable_erasers or count_usable_block_erasers > instead? > > > >> +{ >> + int usable_erasefunctions = 0; >> + int k; >> + for (k = 0; k < NUM_ERASEFUNCTIONS; k++) { >> + if (!check_block_eraser(flash, k, 0)) >> + usable_erasefunctions++; >> + } >> + return usable_erasefunctions; >> +} >> + >> >> > Rest looks good to me. >
With the changes outlined above: Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]> Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/ _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
