Patchwork Add eraseblock functions to self-check

Add eraseblock functions to self-check. It doesn't make sense to have

On 1/18/10 6:46 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> Add eraseblock functions to self-check. It doesn't make sense to have
> different layouts for the same function on one chip.
> Keep going if an error is found, we want all errors to be reported in
> one fell swoop.
>
> Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger<c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net>
>
> Index: flashrom-selfcheck_eraseblocks_functions/flashrom.c
> ===================================================================
> --- flashrom-selfcheck_eraseblocks_functions/flashrom.c	(Revision 866)
> +++ flashrom-selfcheck_eraseblocks_functions/flashrom.c	(Arbeitskopie)
> @@ -833,10 +833,13 @@
>   	return 0;
>   }
>
> -/* This function shares a lot of its structure with erase_flash(). */
> +/* This function shares a lot of its structure with erase_flash().
> + * Even if an error is found, the function will keep going and check the rest.
> + */
>   int selfcheck_eraseblocks(struct flashchip *flash)
>   {
> -	int i, k;
> +	int i, j, k;
> +	int ret = 0;
>
>   	for (k = 0; k<  NUM_ERASEFUNCTIONS; k++) {
>   		unsigned int done = 0;
> @@ -850,8 +853,7 @@
>   					"%i region %i has size 0. Please report"
>   					" a bug at flashrom@flashrom.org\n",
>   					flash->name, k, i);
> -				return 1;
> -				break;
> +				ret = 1;
>   			}
>   			/* Blocks with zero count are bugs in flashchips.c. */
>   			if (!eraser.eraseblocks[i].count&&
> @@ -860,13 +862,15 @@
>   					"%i region %i has count 0. Please report"
>   					" a bug at flashrom@flashrom.org\n",
>   					flash->name, k, i);
> -				return 1;
> -				break;
> +				ret = 1;
>   			}
>   			done += eraser.eraseblocks[i].count *
>   				eraser.eraseblocks[i].size;
>   		}
> -		/* This erase function is completely empty. */
> +		/* Empty eraseblock definition with erase function.  */
> +		if (!done&&  eraser.block_erase)
> +			msg_pspew("Strange: Empty eraseblock definition with "
> +				"non-empty erase function. Not an error.\n");
>   		if (!done)
>   			continue;
>   		if (done != flash->total_size * 1024) {
> @@ -875,10 +879,25 @@
>   				" expected 0x%06x bytes. Please report a bug at"
>   				" flashrom@flashrom.org\n", flash->name, k,
>   				done, flash->total_size * 1024);
> -			return 1;
> +			ret = 1;
>   		}
> +		if (!eraser.block_erase)
> +			continue;
> +		/* Check if there are identical erase functions for different
> +		 * layouts. That would imply "magic" erase functions. The
> +		 * easiest way to check this is with function pointers.
> +		 */
> +		for (j = k + 1; j<  NUM_ERASEFUNCTIONS; j++)
> +			if (eraser.block_erase ==
> +			    flash->block_erasers[j].block_erase) {
> +				msg_gerr("ERROR: Flash chip %s erase function "
> +					"%i and %i are identical. Please report"
> +					" a bug at flashrom@flashrom.org\n",
> +					flash->name, k, j);
> +				ret = 1;
> +			}
>   	}
> -	return 0;
> +	return ret;
>   }
>
>   int erase_flash(struct flashchip *flash)
>
>
>    
Acked-by: Sean Nelson <audiohacked@gmail.com>

On 19.01.2010 04:40, Sean Nelson wrote:
> On 1/18/10 6:46 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
>> Add eraseblock functions to self-check. 
> Acked-by: Sean Nelson <audiohacked@gmail.com>

Thanks, r869.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel