[flashrom] [PATCH] Change prefix of chip id #defines
c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net
Wed Sep 15 17:49:34 CEST 2010
On 15.09.2010 04:04, Mattias Mattsson wrote:
> This patch changes the prefix of chip constant #defines in the following way:
> AM_nnnnnnn -> AMD_AMnnnnnnn
> AT_nnnnnnn -> ATMEL_ATnnnnnnn
> EN_nnnnnnn -> EON_ENnnnnnnn
> MBMnnnnnnn -> FUJITSU_MBMnnnnnnn
> MX_ID -> MACRONIX_ID
> MX_nnnnnnn -> MACRONIX_MXnnnnnnn
> PMC_nnnnnnn -> PMC_PMnnnnnnn
> SST_nnnnnnn -> SST_SSTnnnnnnn
> It leaves the Intel #defines alone because there is another pending
> patch for that:
> Some background discussion here:
> Signed-off-by: Mattias Mattsson <vitplister at gmail.com>
> .name = "Am29LV081B",
> + .model_id = AMD_AM29LV080B,
This looks odd. Chip name and model_id don't match.
The whole EN25B family seems to be in desperate need of
FEATURE_EVIL_TWIN unless the IDs are incorrect. Admittedly your patch
doesn't make it worse, but this area is in desperate need of fixing.
> .name = "Pm39LV010",
> + .model_id = PMC_PM39F010, /* Pm39LV010 and Pm39F010 have identical IDs but different voltage */
name/model_id mismatch. Besides that, we probably want all names in .name
> .name = "SST25LF040A.RES",
> + .model_id = SST_SST25VF040_REMS,
SST25LF040A vs. SST25LF040, and RES vs. REMS. Not your fault, but we
should fix that as well.
> .name = "SST28SF040A",
> + .model_id = SST_SST28SF040,
SST28SF040A vs. SST28SF040.
Same problem for SST39SF010A/SST39SF010 and SST39SF020A/SST39SF020.
Side note: The Sanyo LF25FW203A has SANYO_LE25FW203A. Is "LE25" or LF25"
Rest looks good. Not sure if we want to fix the problems above in a
separate patch, and keep this patch a pure conversion with no semantic
changes. IMHO the two-patch solution is better, so please commit this
Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net>
More information about the flashrom