[flashrom] [PATCH] Change prefix of chip id #defines

Mattias Mattsson vitplister at gmail.com
Thu Sep 16 01:33:29 CEST 2010


On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 17:49, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
<c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net> wrote:
> On 15.09.2010 04:04, Mattias Mattsson wrote:
>> This patch changes the prefix of chip constant #defines in the following way:
>>
>> AM_nnnnnnn -> AMD_AMnnnnnnn
>> AT_nnnnnnn -> ATMEL_ATnnnnnnn
>> EN_nnnnnnn -> EON_ENnnnnnnn
>> MBMnnnnnnn -> FUJITSU_MBMnnnnnnn
>> MX_ID -> MACRONIX_ID
>> MX_nnnnnnn -> MACRONIX_MXnnnnnnn
>> PMC_nnnnnnn -> PMC_PMnnnnnnn
>> SST_nnnnnnn -> SST_SSTnnnnnnn
>>
>> It leaves the Intel #defines alone because there is another pending
>> patch for that:
>> http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/1937/
>>
>> Some background discussion here:
>> http://www.flashrom.org/pipermail/flashrom/2010-July/004059.html
>>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mattias Mattsson <vitplister at gmail.com>
>>
>>               .name           = "Am29LV081B",
>> +             .model_id       = AMD_AM29LV080B,
>>
>
> This looks odd. Chip name and model_id don't match.
>
>
>> EN25B*
>>
>
> The whole EN25B family seems to be in desperate need of
> FEATURE_EVIL_TWIN unless the IDs are incorrect. Admittedly your patch
> doesn't make it worse, but this area is in desperate need of fixing.
>
>
>>               .name           = "Pm39LV010",
>> +             .model_id       = PMC_PM39F010, /* Pm39LV010 and Pm39F010 have identical IDs but different voltage */
>>
>
> name/model_id mismatch. Besides that, we probably want all names in .name
>
>
>>               .name           = "SST25LF040A.RES",
>> +             .model_id       = SST_SST25VF040_REMS,
>>
>
> SST25LF040A vs. SST25LF040, and RES vs. REMS. Not your fault, but we
> should fix that as well.
>
>
>>               .name           = "SST28SF040A",
>> +             .model_id       = SST_SST28SF040,
>>
>
> SST28SF040A vs. SST28SF040.
>
> Same problem for SST39SF010A/SST39SF010 and SST39SF020A/SST39SF020.
>
> Side note: The Sanyo LF25FW203A has SANYO_LE25FW203A. Is "LE25" or LF25"
> correct?
>
>
> Rest looks good. Not sure if we want to fix the problems above in a
> separate patch, and keep this patch a pure conversion with no semantic
> changes. IMHO the two-patch solution is better, so please commit this
> patch as-is.
>
> Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net>

Thanks, committed as r1175.

Also, many thanks for your comments! I will look at them separately.


-mattias




More information about the flashrom mailing list