On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:26:22 +0300 Kyösti Mälkki <[email protected]> wrote:
> W39F010 is 128kB parallel 5V flash chip, 16k bootblocks. > W39L010 is 128kB parallel 3V flash chip, 8k bootblocks. > W39L020 is 256kB parallel 3V flash chip, 64k/16k bootblocks. > > Considering the test of W39F010, on the platform [1] the first write > attempt after erase returned with verify failure. Second write attempt > and following read-verify was succesful. > > [1] "Silicon Image SiI 3124 PCI-X SATA Ctrl" (1095:3124, BDF 07:04.0). > > Signed-off-by: Kyösti Mälkki <[email protected]> Thanks for the patch! Acked-by: Stefan Tauner <[email protected]> and committed in r1620. > index da61d23..d6504ff 100644 > --- a/w39.c > +++ b/w39.c > @@ -115,6 +115,26 @@ static int printlock_w39_tblwp(uint8_t lock) > return 0; > } > > +static int printlock_w39_bootblock_8k(uint8_t lock) > +{ > + msg_cdbg("Software 8 kB bootblock locking is %sactive.\n", > + (lock & 0x03) ? "" : "not "); > + if (lock & 0x03) > + return -1; > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +static int printlock_w39_bootblock_16k(uint8_t lock) > +{ > + msg_cdbg("Software 16 kB bootblock locking is %sactive.\n", > + (lock & 0x03) ? "" : "not "); > + if (lock & 0x03) > + return -1; > + > + return 0; > +} > + these functions were a bit too obviously redundant. i have combined them by using an additional parameter to indicate the block size. -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
