[coreboot] Patch for ST M50FLW080A support
Stefan Reinauer
stepan at coresystems.de
Sat Apr 26 14:00:05 CEST 2008
Peter Stuge wrote:
> H
>> +/* claus.gindhart at kontron.com
>> + * TODO
>> + * I think, that verification is not required, but
>> + * i leave it in anyway
>> + */
>> + dst = d;
>> + src = s;
>> + for (i = 0; i < page_size; i++) {
>> + if (*dst != *src) {
>> + rc = -1;
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + dst++;
>> + src++;
>> + }
>>
>
> You are correct - verification is done in other functions in flashrom
> so please remove it from the write function.
>
I beg to rethink this. Some of the flash drivers use the verification to
do an immediate rewrite of a single sector.
This is required for some flaky parts. Having to write flashrom -wv
instead of -w to make sure the flash image was correctly written to the
chip is a bogus user interface.
While you might want to omit the erase, there's no reason not to know
about the failure of a given write.
>> I think you have to add a Signed-Off-By line [1]. Otherwise your
>> patch cannot be acked and then commited.
>>
>> [1] http://www.coreboot.org/Development_Guidelines#Sign-off_Procedure
>>
>
> Spot on, Paul.
>
> Claus, please have a look at the development guidelines page which
> describes the (simple) process for contributing code to the project.
> Part of that is the sign-off procedure that Paul mentions.
>
> It is important that all contributions come with an unambiguous
> license, which is why I am so repetitive about the automatic
> disclaimer in your outgoing email. I am sorry for the extra trouble.
> Ideally you would be able to remove that text from your outgoing
> email messages at least to this mailing list.
>
Please be patient with our fresh corporate contributors. While I fully
agree with you, Peter, the attempts to change corporate rules and
culture are probably a lot more effort than contributing code, and
wildly out of the scope of our project.
Stefan
More information about the coreboot
mailing list