On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 00:27:35 +0200 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sorry, another comment... > > Am 01.07.2011 00:25 schrieb Carl-Daniel Hailfinger: > > Am 30.06.2011 22:37 schrieb Stefan Tauner: > > > >> add count_usable_erasers which returns the number of well-defined erasers > >> for a chip > >> > >> This can be used in various situations (including one in the upcoming SFDP > >> patch) and > >> removes one FIXME in current HEAD. Needed to add a declaration of > >> check_block_eraser. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <[email protected]> > >> > >> diff --git a/flashrom.c b/flashrom.c > >> index 13d398e..10035c4 100644 > >> --- a/flashrom.c > >> +++ b/flashrom.c > >> @@ -1818,13 +1830,13 @@ int chip_safety_check(struct flashchip *flash, int > >> force, int read_it, int write > >> } > >> if (erase_it || write_it) { > >> /* Write needs erase. */ > >> - if (flash->tested & TEST_BAD_ERASE) { > >> + if (flash->tested & TEST_BAD_ERASE || > >> + !count_usable_erasers(flash, 0)) { > >> > >> > > Please split that if statement. Allowing --force makes sense for > > TEST_BAD_ERASE, but it makes no sense if no erase functions are present. > > You can reuse the error message, the compiler/linker will only store the > > string once. > > > > Would it make sense to remove the check for usable_erasefunctions!=0 in > erase_and_write_flash() if we already do it here? i think so, yes. after i split up the if this should no longer be needed because it should never get that far. testing agrees, so i have removed it and committed the whole thing in r1358. thanks for the review! -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
