> Carl-Daniel is going on vacation tomorrow and won't be readily available > for at least a week. Also, we have a very bad history of merging > patches (not only foreign ones, or own too). So, if you don't hear > anything from him soonish, I suggest you either implement my proposition > (I believe that has a good probability of getting merged, apart from > some name bikeshedding), or continue with what you have so far and be > prepared to adapt your changes later. After all, your changes so far > are not that bold and have a relatively limited extent. That should not > cause to many troubles if changed later.
I decided to implement your proposal since I think it's cleaner; I just submitted that as v2 a few minutes ago. Feel free to bikeshed to your heart's content. > I am interested in hearing more about your further plans. We had > patches for a few related functionalities (e.g. setting the status > register of SPI flashes manually) and google is using a very extended > CLI for unlocking address ranges of flash chips that you might want to > look at first. The most immediate need was to add an option to bypass the check_erased_range() call in erase_and_write_block_helper() to speed up erases. Supposedly it reduced erase times from ~13 minutes to ~3 minutes. I don't know if this is a great idea or not since I had little to do with it; I just saw it in an internal svn branch where they implemented it by adding an ugly "erase_check" argument in addition to read_it, write_it, etc. Thanks, Nate _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
