On 31.12.2007 08:24, Markus wrote:
> Am Mon, 31 Dec 2007 03:07:15 +0100
> schrieb Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>   
>> On 30.12.2007 21:09, Markus wrote:
>>     
>>> The Chip is an EN29F002NT.
>>>   
>>>       
>> What do you think about this patch?
>>
>> Unfortunately, EN29F002T, EN29F002AT, EN29F002ANT, EN29F002NT all have
>> exactly the same ID. Improve model number printing.
>> Add EN29F002(A)(N)B support while I'm at it.
>> Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> Index: flashrom-eon/flash.h
>> ===================================================================
>> --- flashrom-eon/flash.h     (Revision 3030)
>> +++ flashrom-eon/flash.h     (Arbeitskopie)
>> @@ -109,8 +109,8 @@
>>  #define EN_29F040A          0x7F04
>>  #define EN_29LV010          0x7F6E
>>  #define EN_29LV040A         0x7F4F  /* EN_29LV040(A) */
>> -#define EN_29F002AT         0x7F92
>> -#define EN_29F002AB         0x7F97
>> +#define EN_29F002T          0x7F92
>> +#define EN_29F002B          0x7F97
>>  
>>  #define FUJITSU_ID          0x04    /* Fujitsu */
>>  /* MBM29F400TC_STRANGE has a value not mentioned in the data sheet
>> and we Index: flashrom-eon/flashchips.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- flashrom-eon/flashchips.c        (Revision 3030)
>> +++ flashrom-eon/flashchips.c        (Arbeitskopie)
>> @@ -42,9 +42,10 @@
>>       probe_jedec,   erase_chip_jedec, write_jedec},
>>      {"At49F002(N)T",ATMEL_ID,       AT_49F002NT,    256,
>> 256, probe_jedec,    erase_chip_jedec, write_jedec},
>> -    /* The EN29F002AT can do byte program at arbitrary
>> boundaries. */
>> -    {"EN29F002AT",  EON_ID,
>> EN_29F002AT, 256, 256,
>> +    {"EN29F002(A)(N)T",     EON_ID, EN_29F002T,
>> 256, 256, probe_jedec,       erase_chip_jedec, write_jedec},
>> +    {"EN29F002(A)(N)B",     EON_ID, EN_29F002B,
>> 256, 256,
>> +     probe_jedec,   erase_chip_jedec, write_jedec},
>>      {"MBM29F400TC", FUJITSU_ID,
>> MBM29F400TC_STRANGE, 512, 64 * 1024, probe_m29f400bt,
>> erase_m29f400bt, write_linuxbios_m29f400bt}, {"MX29F002",
>> MX_ID,               MX_29F002,      256, 64 * 1024,
>>
>>
>>
>>     
> I think the patch is okay.
>
> Acked-by: Markus Boas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   

Thanks, r3031.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel

-- 
linuxbios mailing list
linuxbios@linuxbios.org
http://www.linuxbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios

Reply via email to