On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 21:04:38 +0200 Stefan Tauner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:11:00 -0400 > Zeus Castro <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > disclamer: this is my first patch review for flashrom. > > disclamer: this is my first patch ever :-) > > Also, although I'm a decent programmer, my knowledge of C is pretty > > limited. > > > > Based on the datasheets of both, the SST25LF080A is basically a larger > > version of the SST25LF040A. > > However, flashrom had an entry for SST25LF040A, but not for > > SST25LF080A. As such, I modeled it after the entry for SST25LF040A, > > and altered the values that differed. > thought so. that's what i and probably all without better insights > usually do. my comments were mostly meant to show what i think is the > right thing to do, not in your patch alone but on the whole in the code > related to it. that's probably the wrong stand when one reviews a > concrete patch, but it feels natural and the reviews i received were > similar. in this case my patch would probably be very similar to yours. > with the exception of the .RES _REMS suffices: > > > >> + .name = "SST25LF080A.RES", > > > i dont see a reason why you are using .RES here. > > > according to the datasheet REMS work as well as RES. > > > but maybe i dont know some detail. > > > > > >> + .probe = probe_spi_res2, > > > ok, or probe_spi_rems > > > > > I was confused as well as to why the oscillation between REMS, RES, > > and RES2 in the SST25LF040A entry, but figured that there was probably > > a reason I did not understand, and copied it over in the same manner. > > So, you recommend I change it all to REMS? > i would remove the .RES from the name, the probe method is ok. > i dont understand it either, maybe someone else can clear that up. > > > >> Index: flashchips.h > > > > > >> -#define SST_SST25VF080_REMS 0x80 /* REMS or RES opcode */ > > >> +#define SST_SST25VF080_REMS 0x80 /* REMS or RES opcode, same > > >> as SST25LF080A */ > > > > > > since the SST25VF080 is not implemented and that define is not used > > > at all as far as i (and grep) can see, there is no reason to use > > > the rems suffix imho. > > > > > Apparently SST25VFxxx and SST25LFxxx chips often share the same > > REMS/RES device id. And since the one for SST25LF040A was "tacked on" > > to the define for SST25VF040_REMS (since they use the same byte), and > > there was an already existing define for SST25VF080_REMS (which uses > > the same byte as I was planning to include for the SST25LF080A), I > > just "tacked on" the SST25LF080A in the same manner. So, you recommend > > I change it to read?: > > #define SST_SST25LF080A 0x80" > i dont like the _REMS suffix, just like above. > the "same as xyz"-strategy is used all over in flashrom.h and is ok. > > > >> + .tested = TEST_UNTESTED, > > > did you really not test it? why have you added it? > > > > > The only sample I have is currently inside my laptop, and flashrom > > access to it is being blocked by the EC/KBC (an ENE KB926). > > Besides, there are about 170 untested chips in flashchips.c, so I > > figured one more, especially based on an incremental upgrade to a > > probe-tested chip (SST25LF040A), wouldn't be problematic. > no problem at all, i just wanted to know. > > > >> + .unlock = spi_disable_blockprotect, > > > this will not work if bit 7 (BPL) is set > > > some of the at25* write protections are similar. one might use them. > > > > > spi_disable_blockprotect is sufficient for this chip: > > The important bits are 2-5 (although this chip only cares about 2 and > > 3). If those bits are 0, the chip isn't protected. > > If there is protection, spi_disable_blockprotect correctly attempts to > > set them to 0, and checks if it succeeded. > > The only way it can fail is if bit 7 is set and the Write Protect Pin > > (WP#) is being pulled low, in which case there is nothing that can be > > done (block protection cannot be disabled without reseting the chip) > > and spi_disable_blockprotect returns 1. > > No additional functionality is possible. > > > correct. i missed the point, that WRSR is not possible when BPL is set. > > all in all it looks ok, thanks for your effort! > due to the rems/res stuff someone else needs to take a look (i dont > have commit rights anyway). > i have sorted out the naming problems, moved the definition a bit up and committed in r1415. thank you! -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
