summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorAlan Green <avg@google.com>2019-08-23 10:11:37 +1000
committerEdward O'Callaghan <quasisec@chromium.org>2019-09-17 06:29:13 +0000
commitdd59220e7e774d3e8fa100cd0b448fa363e3be73 (patch)
tree6d7c8fb007bf977a011c3b4b63bb906f5872b677
parent71b706f544eff68657a15139c39b9f0d8c3b2940 (diff)
downloadflashrom-dd59220e7e774d3e8fa100cd0b448fa363e3be73.tar.gz
flashrom-dd59220e7e774d3e8fa100cd0b448fa363e3be73.tar.bz2
flashrom-dd59220e7e774d3e8fa100cd0b448fa363e3be73.zip
flashchips.c: Put SFDP-capable chip back into position
Put entry for Unknown SFDP-capable chip back into place at end of file. Change 1f9cc7d89992114c70f7a0545ad9f98701bebe56 "flashchips.c: Sort file by vendor and model" reordered many entries in flashchips.c, including this one. However, the entry for Unknown, SFDP-capable chip should not have been moved before any specific chip entries. As reported by Angel Pons <th3fanbus@gmail.com> at https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/33931: """ Oops, this introduced a bug: the SFDP entry is no longer at the end of flashchips.c, so probing on a SFDP-capable Winbond chip results in added noise (flashrom says things about an unknown chip, and then has two definitions for the same chip). """ Signed-off-by: Alan Green <avg@google.com> Change-Id: I5955020456dbcd5e7db280a459b668a743e464dc Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/35037 Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply@coreboot.org> Reviewed-by: Angel Pons <th3fanbus@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Edward O'Callaghan <quasisec@chromium.org>
-rw-r--r--flashchips.c44
1 files changed, 22 insertions, 22 deletions
diff --git a/flashchips.c b/flashchips.c
index c6f95172a..9b686c1bd 100644
--- a/flashchips.c
+++ b/flashchips.c
@@ -15612,28 +15612,6 @@ const struct flashchip flashchips[] = {
},
{
- .vendor = "Unknown",
- .name = "SFDP-capable chip",
- .bustype = BUS_SPI,
- .manufacture_id = GENERIC_MANUF_ID,
- .model_id = SFDP_DEVICE_ID,
- .total_size = 0, /* set by probing function */
- .page_size = 0, /* set by probing function */
- .feature_bits = 0, /* set by probing function */
- /* We present our own "report this" text hence we do not */
- /* want the default "This flash part has status UNTESTED..." */
- /* text to be printed. */
- .tested = TEST_OK_PREW,
- .probe = probe_spi_sfdp,
- .block_erasers = {}, /* set by probing function */
- .unlock = spi_disable_blockprotect, /* is this safe? */
- .write = NULL, /* set by probing function */
- .read = spi_chip_read,
- /* FIXME: some vendor extensions define this */
- .voltage = {0},
- },
-
- {
.vendor = "Winbond",
.name = "W25P16",
.bustype = BUS_SPI,
@@ -17576,6 +17554,28 @@ const struct flashchip flashchips[] = {
},
{
+ .vendor = "Unknown",
+ .name = "SFDP-capable chip",
+ .bustype = BUS_SPI,
+ .manufacture_id = GENERIC_MANUF_ID,
+ .model_id = SFDP_DEVICE_ID,
+ .total_size = 0, /* set by probing function */
+ .page_size = 0, /* set by probing function */
+ .feature_bits = 0, /* set by probing function */
+ /* We present our own "report this" text hence we do not */
+ /* want the default "This flash part has status UNTESTED..." */
+ /* text to be printed. */
+ .tested = TEST_OK_PREW,
+ .probe = probe_spi_sfdp,
+ .block_erasers = {}, /* set by probing function */
+ .unlock = spi_disable_blockprotect, /* is this safe? */
+ .write = NULL, /* set by probing function */
+ .read = spi_chip_read,
+ /* FIXME: some vendor extensions define this */
+ .voltage = {0},
+ },
+
+ {
.vendor = "Programmer",
.name = "Opaque flash chip",
.bustype = BUS_PROG,