[flashrom] [PATCH] Print lock status for Winbond W39*

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

On 05.12.2010 00:06, Michael Karcher wrote:
> Am Samstag, den 04.12.2010, 05:25 +0100 schrieb Carl-Daniel Hailfinger:
>   
>> +static int printlock_w39_wblwp(uint8_t lock)
>>     
> as discussed on IRC: typo in function name.
>   

Fixed.


>> +int printlock_w39v040c(struct flashchip *flash)
>> +{
>> +	return printlock_w39_common(flash, 0xfff2);
>> +}
>>     
> I would guess this is a typo in the datasheet, and should be 0x7fff2
> too, OTOH, that datasheet uses that address consistently and that
> address was also used in the old code. Still it should be tested on real
> hardware, and left the way you have it now.
>   

I have added a comment.


>> +/* Unused because W39V040B and W39V040FB can not be distinguished from each
>> + * other based on ID.
>> + */
>>     
> That comment is not true anymore.
>
>   
>> +/* Unused because W39V040C and W39V040FC can not be distinguished from each
>> + * other based on ID.
>> + */
>>     
> Dito.
>   

Both fixed.


>> +int unlock_w39v080fa(struct flashchip *flash)
>> +{
>> +	if (unlock_w39_fwh(flash))
>> +		return -1;
>> +	/* The soft bootblock locks may have been deactivated by the unlock
>> +	 * above, so check them last.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (printlock_w39_common(flash, 0xffff2))
>> +		return -1;
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>>     
> I don't understand the comment in here: The w39v080fa does not have the
> software boot block lock feature if I skimmed over the datasheet
> correctly, and the software boot block lock other chips have is
> permanent and can not be cleared.
>   

Yes, the comment was a leftover from another unlocking function I wanted
to write. Killed.


> Acked-by: Michael Karcher <flashrom at mkarcher.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
>   

Thanks, committed in r1245.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel

-- 
http://www.hailfinger.org/