1
0
mirror of https://review.coreboot.org/flashrom.git synced 2025-04-30 16:33:41 +02:00

flashchips.c: Format SFDP-capable chip entry

To allow automated tools to manipulate flashchips.c, make the definition
of SFDP-capable chip more consistent with other definitions. This
involves
- reordering fields to match both other entries and the definition of
  struct flashchip.
- reformatting comments to make them consistent with other entries.

Signed-off-by: Alan Green <avg@google.com>
Change-Id: I8708a11993822085b3e8d8c80532dfb935d39876
Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/33834
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply@coreboot.org>
Reviewed-by: Angel Pons <th3fanbus@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Edward O'Callaghan <quasisec@chromium.org>
This commit is contained in:
Alan Green 2019-06-27 17:14:11 +10:00 committed by Edward O'Callaghan
parent f29ea362bb
commit 69146f70a6

View File

@ -17458,21 +17458,20 @@ const struct flashchip flashchips[] = {
.bustype = BUS_SPI,
.manufacture_id = GENERIC_MANUF_ID,
.model_id = SFDP_DEVICE_ID,
/* We present our own "report this" text hence we do not
* want the default "This flash part has status UNTESTED..."
* text to be printed. */
.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},
/* Everything below will be set by the probing function. */
.write = NULL,
.total_size = 0,
.page_size = 0,
.feature_bits = 0,
.block_erasers = {},
},
{