On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 01:53:34 +0200 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]> wrote:
> Am 25.08.2012 04:09 schrieb Stefan Tauner: > > This is based on the idea from the "Make satasii driver more robust" patch > > Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]> > > > > It is missing the BAR access changes, but factors out the wait loop and > > replaces all endless loops instead of just a few. > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <[email protected]> > > The refactoring is a really good idea and I like it. > > Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]> thanks! > (The fixup patch for BAR5 is a separate issue and I have to reinvestiage > what I tried to debug/fix back then.) ok i'll leave the fixup patch on patchwork as a reminder for you. > > i am not sure if we really want to ignore the hung status register. > > Normally, i would have really aborted on timeouts, but since this was not > > part of the original patch i kept the ignoring behavior. > > I don't think we can abort on timeouts. satasii_chip_writeb() returns > void. We would have to change all chip_write[bwl]() and all > chip_read[bwl]() functions to allow for error handling. Not sure if that > is worth it. well... we can not report an error back, but we certainly could return early. i have not even tried to figure out what would happen in that case though, so i committed this for now (r1588). another thing that puzzles me a bit is: why do we need to sync with the status register before AND after each read/write? do other functions depend on this behavior/a synchronized state? -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
