Without the header being explicitly included, scan-build run on CI
was returning errors for these files, such as:
include the header <stdlib.h> or explicitly provide a declaration
for 'calloc'
The functions in question were calloc, free, etc.
Change-Id: I4b79c5f86c074c456533296c309293e4064abe3f
Signed-off-by: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm@flashrom.org>
Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84455
Reviewed-by: Stefan Reinauer <stefan.reinauer@coreboot.org>
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply@coreboot.org>
Hook logging callback so unit-tests print what they are doing.
This make debug far easier for a failing test.
BUG=none
TEST=ninja test.
Change-Id: I7ab0ff0915a76eea9857fc876493615c06193a37
Signed-off-by: Edward O'Callaghan <quasisec@google.com>
Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/74932
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply@coreboot.org>
Reviewed-by: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm@chromium.org>
Converting the blockprotect unlock function pointer
within the flashchip struct into enum values allows for
the flashchips db to be turn into pure, declarative data.
A nice side-effect of this is to reduce link-time symbol
space of chipdrivers and increase modularity of the
spi25_statusreg.c and related implementations.
BUG=none
TEST=ninja test.
Change-Id: Ie5c5db1b09d07e1a549990d6f5a622fae4c83233
Signed-off-by: Edward O'Callaghan <quasisec@google.com>
Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/69933
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply@coreboot.org>
Reviewed-by: Sam McNally <sammc@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm@chromium.org>
Add a new wp_cfg_to_reg_values() function that takes a generic wp_cfg
instance and returns the chip-specific values that need to be written to
the chip's registers to enable the specified protection range/mode.
The function returns three values for each chip register:
- reg_values[reg] - Value writeprotect will write to reg
- bit_masks[reg] - Bit mask for WP-related bits in reg
- write_masks[reg] - Bit mask for writable WP-related bits in reg
(i.e. the ones writeprotect will try to write)
BUG=b:260019525,b:259013033,260020006
BRANCH=none
TEST=ninja test
Change-Id: Ib2a47153b230c9f82bb4eca357c335f2abbacc20
Signed-off-by: Nikolai Artemiev <nartemiev@google.com>
Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/69847
Reviewed-by: Edward O'Callaghan <quasisec@chromium.org>
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply@coreboot.org>
Reviewed-by: Sergii Dmytruk <sergii.dmytruk@3mdeb.com>
Just use a static string on the stack.
Change-Id: Ic6cb4f32094ae5868912ebcffc8ab21026c48d32
Signed-off-by: Edward O'Callaghan <quasisec@google.com>
Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/71917
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply@coreboot.org>
Reviewed-by: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm@chromium.org>
The `full_chip_erase_with_wp_dummyflasher_test_success` test case
checks that erasing a write-protected region of a dummyflasher chip
fails.
However erase optimization may cause the erase operation to be skipped
if the flash contents are already erased, so the erase operation appears
to succeed and the test case fails.
Writing a non-erased value to the chip ensures that an erase operation
will be executed and write protection will be properly tested.
BUG=b:237620197
BRANCH=none
TEST=ninja test
Change-Id: Ia00444dcd2ad96c64832a13201efbd064cd7302d
Signed-off-by: Nikolai Artemiev <nartemiev@google.com>
Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/69130
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply@coreboot.org>
Reviewed-by: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Edward O'Callaghan <quasisec@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Angel Pons <th3fanbus@gmail.com>
This paves the way to allow for the conversion of flashchip erase_block
func ptr to enumerate values. This change should be a NOP.
TEST=`diff -u <(objdump -D flashchips.o_bk) <(objdump -D flashchips.o)`.
Change-Id: I122295ec9add0fe0efd27273c9725e5d64f6dbe2
Signed-off-by: Edward O'Callaghan <quasisec@google.com>
Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/69131
Reviewed-by: Angel Pons <th3fanbus@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm@chromium.org>
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply@coreboot.org>
This forges the way for flashchips.c to be pure declarative
data and lookup functions for dispatch to be pure. This
means that the flashchips data could be extracted out to
be agnostic data of the flashrom code and algorithms.
TEST='R|W|E && --flash-name' on ARM, AMD & Intel DUT's.
Change-Id: I612d46fefedf2b69e7e2064aa857fa0756efb4e7
Signed-off-by: Edward O'Callaghan <quasisec@google.com>
Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/66788
Reviewed-by: Nikolai Artemiev <nartemiev@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Felix Singer <felixsinger@posteo.net>
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply@coreboot.org>
This forges the way for flashchips.c to be pure declarative
data and lookup functions for dispatch to be pure. This
means that the flashchips data could be extracted out to
be agnostic data of the flashrom code and algorithms.
TEST='R|W|E && --flash-name' on ARM, AMD & Intel DUT's.
Change-Id: I80149de169464b204fb09f1424a86fc645b740fd
Signed-off-by: Edward O'Callaghan <quasisec@google.com>
Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/66782
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply@coreboot.org>
Reviewed-by: Nikolai Artemiev <nartemiev@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Felix Singer <felixsinger@posteo.net>
Replace the `decode_range` function pointer in `struct flashchip` to an
enum value. The enum value can be used to find the corresponding
function pointer by passing it to `lookup_decode_range_func_ptr()`.
Removing function pointers like `decode_range` makes it possible to represent chip data in a declarative format that does not have to be
stored as C source code.
BUG=b:242479049
BRANCH=none
TEST=ninja && ninja test
Signed-off-by: Nikolai Artemiev <nartemiev@google.com>
Change-Id: If6d08d414d3d1ddadc95ca1d407fc87c23ab543d
Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/67195
Reviewed-by: Edward O'Callaghan <quasisec@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Felix Singer <felixsinger@posteo.net>
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply@coreboot.org>
Spansion flash chips S25FL128L and S25FL256L use the WRSR instruction to
write more than 2 registers. So align SR2 and SR3 support: The current
FEATURE_WRSR_EXT is renamed to FEATURE_WRSR_EXT2 and FEATURE_WRSR_EXT3
is added. Also, WRSR3 needs a separate flag now.
Verified that FEATURE_WRSR_EXT2 still works using the `dummy_flasher`.
Signed-off-by: Nico Huber <nico.h@gmx.de>
Change-Id: Ibdfc6eb3d2cfecbf8da0493d067031ddb079a094
Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/64746
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply@coreboot.org>
Reviewed-by: Nikolai Artemiev <nartemiev@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Arthur Heymans <arthur@aheymans.xyz>
Reviewed-by: Thomas Heijligen <src@posteo.de>
