On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:16:40 -0700 David Hendricks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Not for merge... yet. > > It works for dummy, nothing else was tested. > > Limitations/bugs mentioned in the patch. > > > > Interesting approach. However, I think 3-byte vs. 4-byte RDID commands and > caching REMS might make patching spi_send_command rather messy. > > I made a patch that takes a different route by changing > probe_spi_{rdid,rdid4,rems} functions instead. My patch can be viewed via > Gerrit on Chromium.org @ > https://gerrit.chromium.org/gerrit/#/c/35376/2 (doesn't > apply cleanly against upsteam currently). > Much better, but still wrong :) We work around a stupid probing loop instead fixing the root cause (verbose prints will still be way too verbose with this patch). If there are good reasons to do it this way, then i have no problem with it, but if we just hack this into the SPI code because it is easier to implement and come to a consensus, then i'll make the latter hard :P Fixing the probing loop has been on my todo list for a long time and i will work on it as soon as the other architectural changes are merged (status register stuff, check_trans etc). We should postpone the discussion until then IMHO. I suggest that chromium uses David's method till then and someone reviews my other patches soon ;) OTOH it would not hurt to integrate this into upstream with one exception: it would introdcue even more conflicts between open patches: David: some of this heavily conflicts with my "Generify probe_spi_rdid_generic() and add probe_spi_rdid_edi()." and other patches from that set. Maybe it would be better if you leave out the compare_id() introduction to get less conflicts later. -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
