On 14.05.2010 15:51, Stefan Reinauer wrote: > On 5/14/10 3:06 PM, Michael Karcher wrote: > >> Am Freitag, den 14.05.2010, 14:48 +0200 schrieb Stefan Reinauer: >> >> >>> On 4/16/10 6:21 PM, Stefan Reinauer wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Look at the return value of wait_82802ab() >>>> Index: sst49lfxxxc.c >>>> =================================================================== >>>> --- sst49lfxxxc.c (revision 993) >>>> +++ sst49lfxxxc.c (working copy) >>>> @@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ >>>> chip_writeb(0xD0, bios + address); >>>> >>>> status = wait_82802ab(bios); >>>> + print_status_82802ab(status); >>>> >>>> >> [...] >> basically a good idea, but printing one status dump per erased block >> seems a bit excessive, even in verbose mode, as there are some chips >> with 4K sector size. Could you limit status printing to "status != >> 0x80", as this is "ready, no error bits"? >> >> > That's what the 82802ab and sharp lhf00l04 do, too. So if you think the > behavior should be changed, you should change it in all three places. >
That's the plan. Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/ _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
