[flashrom] [PATCH] Add chips Winbond W39F010/L010/L020

[Stefan Tauner]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:26:22 +0300
Kyösti Mälkki <kyosti.malkki at gmail.com> wrote:

> W39F010 is 128kB parallel 5V flash chip, 16k bootblocks.
> W39L010 is 128kB parallel 3V flash chip, 8k bootblocks.
> W39L020 is 256kB parallel 3V flash chip, 64k/16k bootblocks.
> 
> Considering the test of W39F010, on the platform [1] the first write
> attempt after erase returned with verify failure. Second write attempt
> and following read-verify was succesful.
> 
> [1] "Silicon Image SiI 3124 PCI-X SATA Ctrl" (1095:3124, BDF 07:04.0).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kyösti Mälkki <kyosti.malkki at gmail.com>

Thanks for the patch!

Acked-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner at student.tuwien.ac.at>
and committed in r1620.

> index da61d23..d6504ff 100644
> --- a/w39.c
> +++ b/w39.c
> @@ -115,6 +115,26 @@ static int printlock_w39_tblwp(uint8_t lock)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static int printlock_w39_bootblock_8k(uint8_t lock)
> +{
> +	msg_cdbg("Software 8 kB bootblock locking is %sactive.\n",
> +		 (lock & 0x03) ? "" : "not ");
> +	if (lock & 0x03)
> +		return -1;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int printlock_w39_bootblock_16k(uint8_t lock)
> +{
> +	msg_cdbg("Software 16 kB bootblock locking is %sactive.\n",
> +		 (lock & 0x03) ? "" : "not ");
> +	if (lock & 0x03)
> +		return -1;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +

these functions were a bit too obviously redundant. i have combined
them by using an additional parameter to indicate the block size.

-- 
Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner