[LinuxBIOS] r2489 - trunk/LinuxBIOSv2/util/flashrom

[Segher Boessenkool]

>>> +           Set bit 2: BIOSCS# Write Protect Enable (1=enable,
>>> 0=disable). */
>>
>> The bit is misnamed in the datasheet: it's the "write enable"
>> bit, not the "write protect enable" (which would be "write disable").
>
> nitpicking award 2006 ;-)

Not really -- I thought I spotted a code error but then went
to look at the datasheet and _it_ is wrong.  What else is new :-)

>>> +		printf("tried to set 0x%x to 0x%x on %s failed (WARNING
>>> ONLY) \n", xbcs, new, name);
>>
>> Warning only?  It's pretty damn fatal :-)  Or does this mean
>> "trying to continue anyway" (which might not be such a great
>> plan for a utility that can brick your system)?
>
> it actually is. For the Via Epia you have to continue, because this
> test basically fails every second time. But flashing works like a  
> charme.
>
> It's not that bad either, because if it really fails, you fail to  
> write
> to flash. In which case you dont brick your system.

Well you might be able to write to _half_ the flash...

>> Would be nice if this message could be made a bit less cryptic,
>> for example, "WARNING: failed setting %s register %#x to %#x\n".
>> Yes I realise this is probably copied all over the place ;-)
>
> Good idea. Or should we just drop this message all together? Or  
> make it
> printf_debug? If its an error, writing will fail later on anyways.

Nah, report problems as soon as you detect them (unless you're
actually coding a workaround for a chip bug).


Segher