[flashrom] [PATCH] Hook up SPI unlock to infrastructure

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

On 10.07.2010 20:30, Michael Karcher wrote:
> Am Samstag, den 10.07.2010, 03:05 +0200 schrieb Carl-Daniel Hailfinger:
>   
>> -int spi_disable_blockprotect(void);
>> +int spi_disable_blockprotect(struct flashchip *flash);
>>     
> This change makes sense, but you don't use the flash parameter yet.
>
>   
>> @@ -1392,6 +1408,7 @@
>>  				.block_erase = spi_block_erase_c7,
>>  			}
>>  		},
>> +		.unlock		= spi_disable_blockprotect,
>>  		.write		= spi_chip_write_1,
>>  		.read		= read_memmapped,
>>  	},
>>     
> OUCH! "blame" me for committing that! read must not be "read_memmapped".
> Should I submit a fixup patch for that or do you want to fix that in one
> of your patches?
>   

Can you fix it up? Such a change is
> Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net>


>> -int spi_disable_blockprotect(void)
>> +int spi_disable_blockprotect(struct flashchip *flash)
>>  {
>>  	uint8_t status;
>>  	int result;
>> @@ -855,6 +843,11 @@
>>  			msg_cerr("spi_write_status_register failed\n");
>>  			return result;
>>  		}
>> +		status = spi_read_status_register();
>> +		if ((status & 0x3c) != 0) {
>> +			msg_cerr("Block protection could not be disabled!\n");
>> +			/* Should we error out here? */
>>     
> Good question. As long as we have no partial write, we really should
> error out here. But when we get partial writes, it would be great to
> have flashrom being able to flash the lower part of the chip even if the
> upper part is write protected. This would need major code changes,
> though (unlocking would need to get the range to be unlocked), so for
> now erroring out seems like the best option and as soon as not erroring
> out might be sensible, we need to touch the code anyway.
>   

OK, will change the code to error out.

Thanks for your review.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel

-- 
http://www.hailfinger.org/