summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/ft2232_spi.c
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAgeFilesLines
* Store block sizes and corresponding erase functions in struct flashchipCarl-Daniel Hailfinger2009-09-051-1/+1
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | I decided to fill in the info for a few chips to illustrate how this works both for uniform and non-uniform sector sizes. struct eraseblock{ int size; /* Eraseblock size */ int count; /* Number of contiguous blocks with that size */ }; struct eraseblock doesn't correspond with a single erase block, but with a group of contiguous erase blocks having the same size. Given a (top boot block) flash chip with the following weird, but real-life structure: top 16384 8192 8192 32768 65536 65536 65536 65536 65536 65536 65536 bottom we get the following encoding: {65536,7},{32768,1},{8192,2},{16384,1} Although the number of blocks is bigger than 4, the number of block groups is only 4. If you ever add some flash chips with more than 4 contiguous block groups, the definition will not fit into the 4-member array anymore and gcc will recognize that and error out. No undetected overflow possible. In that case, you simply increase array size a bit. For modern flash chips with uniform erase block size, you only need one array member anyway. Of course data types will need to be changed if you ever get flash chips with more than 2^30 erase blocks, but even with the lowest known erase granularity of 256 bytes, these flash chips will have to have a size of a quarter Terabyte. I'm pretty confident we won't see such big EEPROMs in the near future (or at least not attached in a way that makes flashrom usable). For SPI chips, we even have a guaranteed safety factor of 4096 over the maximum SPI chip size (which is 2^24). And if such a big flash chip has uniform erase block size, you could even split it among the 4 array members. If you change int count to unsigned int count, the storable size doubles. So with a split and a slight change of data type, the maximum ROM chip size is 2 Terabytes. Since many chips have multiple block erase functions where the eraseblock layout depends on the block erase function, this patch couples the block erase functions with their eraseblock layouts. struct block_eraser { struct eraseblock{ unsigned int size; /* Eraseblock size */ unsigned int count; /* Number of contiguous blocks with that size */ } eraseblocks[NUM_ERASEREGIONS]; int (*block_erase) (struct flashchip *flash, unsigned int blockaddr, unsigned int blocklen); } block_erasers[NUM_ERASEFUNCTIONS]; Corresponding to flashrom svn r719. Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net> Acked-by: Stefan Reinauer <stepan@coresystems.de>
* Standardize on using __func__ instead of __FUNCTION__Uwe Hermann2009-09-021-1/+1
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | The __func__ variant is standardized in C99 and recommended to be used instead of __FUNCTION__ in the gcc info page. Only _very_ old versions of gcc did not know about __func__, but we've been using both __func__ and __FUNCTION__ for a long while now, and nobody complained about this, so all our users seem to use recent enough compilers. Corresponding to flashrom svn r711. Signed-off-by: Uwe Hermann <uwe@hermann-uwe.de> Acked-by: Stefan Reinauer <stepan@coresystems.de>
* If FT2232H SPI is not enabled, it should be compiled out completelyCarl-Daniel Hailfinger2009-08-191-28/+2
| | | | | | | | | | | We can't remove ft2232_spi.o from unconditional OBJS yet due to our makefile structure (make features), but this patch adds #ifdefs around all FT2232H code, so the net effect is the same. Corresponding to flashrom svn r691. Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net> Acked-by: Stefan Reinauer <stepan@coresystems.de>
* Use a common parameter variable for all programmersCarl-Daniel Hailfinger2009-08-121-10/+8
| | | | | | | | | | This allows us to reduce #ifdef clauses a lot if we compile out some programmers completely. Corresponding to flashrom svn r679. Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net> Acked-by: Stefan Reinauer <stepan@coresystems.de>
* Replace remaining explicit erases in SPI programmer drivers with auto-erasesCarl-Daniel Hailfinger2009-08-101-2/+8
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Some SPI chip drivers and the generic 1-byte SPI chip write functions didn't include the automatic erase present in other chip drivers. Since the majority is definitely auto-erase, change the remaining explicit-erase cases to be auto-erase as well. Corresponding to flashrom svn r673. Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net> Acked-by: Carlos Arnau Perez <cemede@gmail.com>
* Use a distinct return code for SPI commands with unsupported/invalid lengthCarl-Daniel Hailfinger2009-07-141-0/+3
| | | | | | | | | | | Some drivers support only a few combinations of read/write length and return error otherwise. Having a distinct return code for this error means we can handle it in upper layers. Corresponding to flashrom svn r653. Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net> Acked-by: Stefan Reinauer <stepan@coresystems.de>
* Convert SPI byte program to use the multicommand infrastructureCarl-Daniel Hailfinger2009-07-121-1/+0
| | | | | | | | | | Tested-by: Jakob Bornecrantz <wallbraker@gmail.com> Corresponding to flashrom svn r651. Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net> Tested it on Epia-m700 worked okay. Acked-by: Jakob Bornecrantz <wallbraker@gmail.com>
* Add SPI multicommand infrastructureCarl-Daniel Hailfinger2009-07-101-2/+2
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Some SPI opcodes need to be sent in direct succession after each other without any chip deselect happening in between. A prominent example is WREN (Write Enable) directly before PP (Page Program). Intel calls the first opcode in such a row "preopcode". Right now, we ignore the direct succession requirement completely and it works pretty well because most onboard SPI masters have a timing or heuristics which make the problem disappear. The FT2232 SPI flasher is different. Since it is an external flasher, timing is very different to what we can expect from onboard flashers and this leads to failure at slow speeds. This patch allows any function to submit multiple SPI commands in a stream to any flasher. Support in the individual flashers isn't implemented yet, so there is one generic function which passes the each command in the stream one-by-one to the command functions of the selected SPI flash driver. Tested-by: Jakob Bornecrantz <wallbraker@gmail.com> Corresponding to flashrom svn r645. Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net> Acked-by: Jakob Bornecrantz <wallbraker@gmail.com>
* ft2232_spi: Allow runtime selection of FT2232H vs. FT4232H and interface A vsCarl-Daniel Hailfinger2009-07-011-5/+40
| | | | | | | | | | B. Corresponding to flashrom svn r638. Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net> Tested-by: Jakob Bornecrantz <wallbraker@gmail.com> Acked-by: Jakob Bornecrantz <wallbraker@gmail.com>
* Random minor flashrom fixesUwe Hermann2009-06-281-1/+1
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Properly escape '-' chars in manpage. - Fix typo in chipset_enable.c. - Drop useless 'return' in chip_readn(). - Random other whitespace or cosmetic fixes. Corresponding to flashrom svn r636. Signed-off-by: Uwe Hermann <uwe@hermann-uwe.de> Acked-by: Uwe Hermann <uwe@hermann-uwe.de>
* This patch adds support for a new SPI programmer, based on the FT2232H/4232H ↵Paul Fox2009-06-161-0/+284
chip from FTDI FTDI support is autodetected during compilation. Paul writes: There are certainly possible improvements: The code has hard-coded values for which interface of the ftdi chip to use (interface B was chosen because libftdi seems to have trouble with A right now), what clock rate use for the SPI interface (I've been running at 30Mhz, but the patch sets it to 10Mhz), and possibly others. I think this means that per-programmer options might be a good idea at some point. Carl-Daniel writes: There is one additional FIXME comment in the code, but AFAICS that problem is not solvable with current libftdi. Corresponding to flashrom svn r598. Signed-off-by: Paul Fox <pgf@laptop.org> Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net> Acked-by: Uwe Hermann <uwe@hermann-uwe.de>
OpenPOWER on IntegriCloud