在 2013年4月20日 星期六 11:36:53，Stefan Tauner 写道： > > Thanks for testing. This is quite odd: we do the right thing IMHO. > The relevant code is in spi25_statusreg.c > spi_disable_blockprotect_at25df() calls > spi_disable_blockprotect_generic(flash, 0x0C, 1 << 7, 1 << 4) > In the beginning the status register is 0x1C, i.e. the status register > is not locked, the hardware protection pin is not asserted, only the > write protection bits are set. > spi_disable_blockprotect_generic() correctly detects that and tries to > set the protection bits to 0 by trying to write 0x10 (not touching the > r/o WP pin bit), but that apparently has no effect. > > > Interestingly here the initial contents of the status register are what > we would expect them to be after unlocking(!). > Maybe the chip reacts too slow? Do you have another explanation for > that behavior? > > The patch below adds a delay of five seconds after trying to write to > the status register for unlocking. >
It seems the delay patch did not work: http://paste.flashrom.org/view.php?id=1623 Without patch 3927 or the delay patch, but with the patch showing the register: http://paste.flashrom.org/view.php?id=1624 That shows without patch 3927 the register has been turnned into 0x10 successfully. _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
