On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Stefan Tauner < [email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > Haha, totally agreed :-) We really should make the probe loop smarter about caching results rather than hacking this into the chip code. You also have a good point about conflicts in my patch. Though there will be plenty of conflicts without the compare_id() stuff anyway... I'll just revert my change when we get a proper method implemented.
_______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
