On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 11:06:55 -0500 (CDT) Nate Case <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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. Thanks, that looks ok to me in general. I'd use just 'opts' for the field name, but let's hear what Carl-Daniel thinks about it first. > > > 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. The erase check is one part of the safety net, and allows to bail out early if there are problems. The speedup you mentioned seems unreasonable from such a change alone IMHO. It does only read the erased block, so essentially the whole chip is read (in chunks) one additional time with the check enabled. Anyway, I think you can base your changes on this patch. And I personally would not mind if the infrastructure for the skipping would end up in flashrom as well (but disabled in cli_classic.c). -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
