Am 15.02.2012 14:11 schrieb Stefan Tauner: > On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 02:55:38 +0100 > Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]> wrote: >> Now if something is outside the scope of >> flashrom, should flashrom care at all? > depends... i dont think of "the scope" as a clearly bounded area. > everything related to flash chips is somewhat in its scope (else we > would not talk about this), heck we even discussed EEPROM handling > multiple times... we dont need to support any and all feature found in > any flash chip out there, but we should integrate knowledge and code > for the more common ones that might be useful, if there is someone > willing to provide them (and maintain them if necessary).
If we target non-flash EEPROMs, we might as well support OTP. I'd say such support is post-1.0 material, though (and no, I don't plan to delay flashrom 1.0 like Wine 1.0 was delayed). >> And then you have the problem that multiple chip generations often >> share the same device ID, so probing can't differentiate between a >> chip with OTP and one without unless you're extremely lucky. Do we >> want FEATURE_OTP and FEATURE_MAYBE_OTP? > FEATURE_MAYBE_NOT_CLONEABLE > half serious... at least this is the semantics i would like to tag > and convey to the user for now. Heh. I think FEATURE_OTP is OK for now, and postpone a split between _OTP and _MAYBE_OTP. >> Do we warn if a chip has a readonly serial number? That means the chip >> can't be cloned. People who care about OTP for clonability reasons >> probably care about other readonly contents as well. OTOH, other people >> who don't use the OTP at all (for them, OTP is just an accidental >> feature of a cheap flash chip) don't want to be bothered by yet another >> line of output from flashrom which has no relevancy for them. > do you agree to lowering the verbosity of the whole message to dbg > level? Yes. >> Removing the trac reference and adding the IRC reference should be a >> separate patch, though, which is >> Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]> > ok, this will go into the recently posted manpage improvement patch > (planned to do that anyway because i did not think that you would look > at this one now :) Thanks! >> do you know any good reference about man page formatting? I had trouble >> finding out what .RE and .RS do. > i have to look that stuff up every time myself, sorry. > yesterday i have used http://gnustep.made-it.com/man-groff.html but > it looks like that would not answer your question... Thanks, it's a good start anyway. >>> the other more theoretical argument i have is: OTP memory is just some >>> memory in the flash chip. it may need other access patterns, but it is not >>> much >>> different from other write protected memories apart from that. >>> some chips implement it in a way that it is even possible to erase the OTP >>> regions. those regions are just normal flash and are made unwriteable by >>> fuses >>> in a register or another addressable byte. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lenski <[email protected]> >>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <[email protected]> >> Stefan: I don't want to veto this patch, and although I think that OTP >> handling is not really a flashrom feature, I think that this >> implementation satisfies the quality criteria for merging, so the patch is >> Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]> > thanks! ill wait for your response regarding message verbosity while > merging the (independent) manpage change into my other patch. Go ahead. Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/ _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
