Am 16.04.2011 13:37 schrieb Stefan Tauner: > On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:13:50 +0200 > Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> We don't care about the memcpy (would be a micro-optimization and >> those are almost always a bad idea). However, we care about good >> debug and error messages. >> > what does the first loop get us in respect to what you said? >
You refactored that loop since then, so it's not a code readability issue anymore. > i would change the check_block_eraser method to return different values > for "not suitable" and "not defined/no more methods" (there cant be > holes in the eraser array, right?). > That would fix the bug and simplify the code at the cost of additional lines in the log for the following case: erase method 0 is suitable, but fails (no change) ... suitable but fails (no change) erase method n is not suitable (my version: not printed, your version: printed) ...not suitable (see above) erase method m is not defined (no change) ...not defined (no change) END OF ARRAY A few LPC/FWH chips have a chip-erase function which is only available in parallel programmer mode (i.e. not in a mainboard), and those would get those additional lines. > i would then remove the first loop and just do checking and printing in > the main loop. > would you accept a patch for that or is there something i have missed? > I'm not opposed to it per se, but I'd like to know how you plan to address the additional lines printed in that approach. Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/ _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
