1. 19 May, 2011 1 commit
    • Carl-Daniel Hailfinger's avatar
      Refine status register and lock printing of Atmel and AMIC SPI chips · 7a3bd8f2
      Carl-Daniel Hailfinger authored
      Add lock printing for AMIC A25L05PT, A25L05PU, A25L10PT, A25L10PU,
      A25L20PT, A25L20PU, A25L40PT, A25L40PU, A25L80P, A25L16PT, A25L16PU,
      A25L512, A25L010, A25L020, A25L040, A25L080, A25L016, A25L032, A25LQ032
      to a25.c.
      
      Add lock printing for Atmel AT26DF081A, AT26DF161, AT26DF161A,
      AT26DF321.
      
      Move Atmel AT25*/AT26* lock related functions originally added in r1115
      from spi25.c to at25.c.
      
      For SPI chips the lock printing was handled by one common function, but
      sharing a common function which only is a big switch() statement doesn't
      make sense, especially if we can define lock printing functions per
      flash chip anyway.
      
      The printlock function pointer in struct flashchip is used to print
      status register and locking information, and serves as replacement for
      implicit status register and lock printing during probe. That code will
      later be changed to store locking info in a machine- accessible data
      structure so flashrom can handle locked regions...
      7a3bd8f2
  2. 18 May, 2011 14 commits
  3. 17 May, 2011 2 commits
  4. 11 May, 2011 2 commits
  5. 08 May, 2011 1 commit
  6. 07 May, 2011 1 commit
  7. 05 May, 2011 2 commits
  8. 04 May, 2011 1 commit
  9. 03 May, 2011 1 commit
  10. 29 Apr, 2011 2 commits
  11. 27 Apr, 2011 1 commit
  12. 15 Apr, 2011 1 commit
    • Michael Karcher's avatar
      Remove delays in JEDEC erase sequence · 880e867a
      Michael Karcher authored
      
      It is extremely unlikely that a chip not requiring delays in probe does
      require them in erase. We observed unreliable erasing with a SST49LF004A
      with these delays, so remove them if the are not required.
      
      In review, I got the hint that "probe_jedec goes further by making that
      call conditional on nonzero delay". I decided to ignore that. For
      internal_delay, the small amount of clock cycles wasted for calling
      programmer_delay(0) is negligible compared to LPC cycle times. It might
      be an issue for 5 wasted bytes on the serial line in serprog. OTOH,
      flash erase is still slow compared to 6*5 bytes on a serial port at
      reasonable speed.
      
      Corresponding to flashrom svn r1288.
      Signed-off-by: default avatarMichael Karcher <flashrom@mkarcher.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
      Acked-by: default avatarCarl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net>
      880e867a
  13. 14 Apr, 2011 2 commits
  14. 02 Apr, 2011 1 commit
  15. 01 Apr, 2011 1 commit
  16. 29 Mar, 2011 1 commit
  17. 18 Mar, 2011 1 commit
  18. 17 Mar, 2011 1 commit
  19. 08 Mar, 2011 3 commits
  20. 07 Mar, 2011 1 commit