[flashrom] [PATCH] Hook up SPI unlock to infrastructure
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net
Sat Jul 10 21:26:59 CEST 2010
On 10.07.2010 20:30, Michael Karcher wrote:
> Am Samstag, den 10.07.2010, 03:05 +0200 schrieb Carl-Daniel Hailfinger:
>
>> -int spi_disable_blockprotect(void);
>> +int spi_disable_blockprotect(struct flashchip *flash);
>>
> This change makes sense, but you don't use the flash parameter yet.
>
>
>> @@ -1392,6 +1408,7 @@
>> .block_erase = spi_block_erase_c7,
>> }
>> },
>> + .unlock = spi_disable_blockprotect,
>> .write = spi_chip_write_1,
>> .read = read_memmapped,
>> },
>>
> OUCH! "blame" me for committing that! read must not be "read_memmapped".
> Should I submit a fixup patch for that or do you want to fix that in one
> of your patches?
>
Can you fix it up? Such a change is
> Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net>
>> -int spi_disable_blockprotect(void)
>> +int spi_disable_blockprotect(struct flashchip *flash)
>> {
>> uint8_t status;
>> int result;
>> @@ -855,6 +843,11 @@
>> msg_cerr("spi_write_status_register failed\n");
>> return result;
>> }
>> + status = spi_read_status_register();
>> + if ((status & 0x3c) != 0) {
>> + msg_cerr("Block protection could not be disabled!\n");
>> + /* Should we error out here? */
>>
> Good question. As long as we have no partial write, we really should
> error out here. But when we get partial writes, it would be great to
> have flashrom being able to flash the lower part of the chip even if the
> upper part is write protected. This would need major code changes,
> though (unlocking would need to get the range to be unlocked), so for
> now erroring out seems like the best option and as soon as not erroring
> out might be sensible, we need to touch the code anyway.
>
OK, will change the code to error out.
Thanks for your review.
Regards,
Carl-Daniel
--
http://www.hailfinger.org/
More information about the flashrom
mailing list