On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:20:19 +0200
Mattias Mattsson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Index: 82802ab.c
> ===================================================================
> --- 82802ab.c (revision 1396)
> +++ 82802ab.c (working copy)
> @@ -208,3 +208,56 @@
>
> return 0;
> }
> +
> +int unlock_lh28f008bjt(struct flashchip *flash)
> +{
> + chipaddr bios = flash->virtual_memory;
> + uint8_t mcfg, bcfg, need_unlock = 0, can_unlock = 0;
mixing initialized and declared-only variables is :(
> + int i;
> +
> + /* Wait if chip is busy */
> + wait_82802ab(flash);
> +
> + /* Read identifier codes */
> + chip_writeb(0x90, bios);
> +
> + /* Read master lock-bit */
> + mcfg = chip_readb(bios + 0x3);
> + msg_cdbg("master lock is ");
> + if (mcfg) {
> + msg_cdbg("locked!\n");
> + } else {
> + msg_cdbg("unlocked!\n");
> + can_unlock = 1;
> + }
> +
> + /* Read block lock-bits, 8 * 8 KiB + 15 * 64 KiB */
although correct, we don't use the IEC prefixes nowhere else...
> + for (i = 0; i < flash->total_size * 1024; i+= (i >= (64 * 1024) ? 64 *
> 1024 : 8 * 1024)) {
hm... line limit. looks very odd at first sight. maybe a while loop
would be better?
> + bcfg = chip_readb(bios + i + 2); // read block lock config
/* */?
not that i find this convention necessary...
> + msg_cdbg("block lock at %06x is %slocked!\n", i, bcfg ? "" :
> "un");
> + if (bcfg) {
> + need_unlock = 1;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + /* Reset chip */
> + chip_writeb(0xFF, bios);
> +
> + /* Unlock: clear block lock-bits, if needed */
> + if (can_unlock && need_unlock) {
> + msg_cdbg("Unlock: ");
> + chip_writeb(0x60, bios);
> + chip_writeb(0xD0, bios);
> + chip_writeb(0xFF, bios);
> + wait_82802ab(flash);
> + msg_cdbg("Done!\n");
> + }
> +
> + /* Error: master locked or a block is locked */
> + if (!can_unlock && need_unlock) {
> + msg_cerr("At least one block is locked and lockdown is
> active!\n");
> + return -1;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
you start messages lower-case and end them with an exclamation mark very
often. we usually do this for errors (or warnings) only.
> Index: flashchips.c
> ===================================================================
> --- flashchips.c (revision 1396)
> +++ flashchips.c (working copy)
> @@ -5379,6 +5379,36 @@
>
> {
> .vendor = "Sharp",
> + .name = "LH28F008BJT-BTLZ1",
why the -BTLZ1 suffix?
i have just looked briefly at the LH28F008BJT-BTLZ1 and
LH28F008BJT-BTLZC datasheets, but they seem to be almost identical?
> + .bustype = BUS_PARALLEL,
> + .manufacture_id = SHARP_ID,
> + .model_id = SHARP_LH28F008BJxxPB,
i am not sure about those id names either, but they are not as
important because they are not visible to the user.
> + .total_size = 1024,
> + .page_size = 64 * 1024,
> + .tested = TEST_OK_PREW,
> + .probe = probe_82802ab,
> + .probe_timing = TIMING_ZERO,
> + .block_erasers =
> + {
> + {
> + .eraseblocks = {
> + {8 * 1024, 8},
> + {64 * 1024, 15}
> + },
> + .block_erase = erase_block_82802ab,
> + }, {
> + .eraseblocks = { {1024 * 1024, 1} },
> + .block_erase = erase_sector_49lfxxxc,
> + }
> + },
> + .unlock = unlock_lh28f008bjt,
> + .write = write_82802ab,
> + .read = read_memmapped,
> + .voltage = {2700, 3600},
> + },
> +
> + {
> + .vendor = "Sharp",
> .name = "LHF00L04",
> .bustype = BUS_FWH, /* A/A Mux */
> .manufacture_id = SHARP_ID,
> Index: chipdrivers.h
> ===================================================================
> --- chipdrivers.h (revision 1396)
> +++ chipdrivers.h (working copy)
> @@ -83,6 +83,7 @@
> void print_status_82802ab(uint8_t status);
> int unlock_82802ab(struct flashchip *flash);
> int unlock_28f004s5(struct flashchip *flash);
> +int unlock_lh28f008bjt(struct flashchip *flash);
>
> /* jedec.c */
> uint8_t oddparity(uint8_t val);
--
Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner
_______________________________________________
flashrom mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
