Opened 5 years ago
Closed 3 years ago
#113 closed enhancement (invalid)
flashrom -c does not accept vendor+chip name, only chip name
| Reported by: | anonymous | Owned by: | somebody |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | major | Milestone: | flashrom v1.1 |
| Component: | flashrom (please use trac on flashrom.org) | Keywords: | |
| Cc: | Dependencies: | ||
| Patch Status: | there is no patch |
Description
there is a bug
Attachments (1)
Change History (7)
comment:1 Changed 5 years ago by anonymous
Changed 5 years ago by anonymous
fix for double detection of the same flash chip under two different names
comment:2 Changed 5 years ago by anonymous
Try the attached patch.
comment:3 Changed 5 years ago by hailfinger
- Component changed from adlo to flashrom
- Summary changed from problem to flashrom -c does not accept vendor+chip name, only chip name
- Type changed from defect to enhancement
Very funny. Your patch breaks flashrom for at least a dozen chips.
The chip vendor is not part of the chip name. Simply use
flashrom -c MX25L8005
One could argue that flashrom -c should accept the combination of vendor and chip name as well, not only the chip name.
comment:4 Changed 4 years ago by stepan
- Milestone set to flashrom v1.1
comment:5 Changed 4 years ago by hailfinger
Is this feature still wanted? If yes, how do we detect whether a user specified chip vendor+name or just chip name?
comment:6 Changed 3 years ago by hailfinger
- Resolution set to invalid
- Status changed from new to closed
I'm tempted to declare this as a simple case of RTFM. The duplicate detection has been fixed for months, and the rest is just a matter of actually reading the output from flashrom.

omg; why is this not tagged as spam. Here is my bugreport that IS posted as spam:
'flashrom does not support a flash chip named ...', but it does
flashrom gives me the above error which is strange; it says it doesn't support the chip; but it is in the list? I assume this could not be caused by not running make install?