[flashrom] Support for MX29F001T/B

[Marko Kraljevic]

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Carl-Daniel
Hailfinger<c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net> wrote:

> You're welcome. If there are further questions, I'd like to add the
> answers to the wiki as well. Saves me explaining that each time someone
> asks ;-)
>

Good idea. How many regulars are there working on flashrom anyhow? Are
the (mainly) a subset of coreboot developers?

I haven't successfully got coreboot to function on any of my machines
yet, but I've only tried one. Perhaps I should dig one up that I
*know* is supported, and go from there.


> To be honest, in the early days of flashrom development, people just
> copied stuff around and renamed it. That's why we still have loads of
> duplicated code. From time to time, I go through the tree and clean up
> the worst offenders... But the 29f002 stuff might as well be a copy of
> jedec or some other functions and nobody had the time to convert usage
> to jedec.
>

Alright, that makes sense. A quick look at the 29f002 and 29f001
datasheets show the command set to be identical, so 29f002.c should
definitely work. (gee, you think I would have checked that before).
I'll take a closer look when I get home, and see if the JEDEC commands
will work. If that's the case, I suppose we could drop the mx29f002.c
file altogether, and just use the JEDEC functions. I'd like to have a
mx29f002 chip to test that though, I'm not sure if I do.


>
> Hey, excitement is good. You went the obvious route and you even tested
> everything. That's absolutely fine. And you caused me to write up some
> useful stuff about flashrom development. That's even better.
>

:-D


> Renaming can be done, but we didn't do that often. We use grep to look
> for matching sequences... maybe not the best method, but it works mostly.
>
>> Or is it better to keep the original name, do you think?
>
> We want to release flashrom 0.9.1 today or tomorrow. I'd rather keep the
> name until 0.9.1 is released. 0.9.1 is done and we're only waiting for
> testers. I guess including a few additional chips won't be a problem if
> we can finish that patch today ;-)
>

Today UTC+2? or today UTC-6 ?
Are most of the developers in Europe? ( I believe both you and Uwe are
in Germany, correct? )

I'm in central Canada. I guess it might have to wait then.


Mark