Change in coreboot[master]: Doc/mb/gigabyte/ga-h61m-s2pv: Fix in-circuit programming

[Angel Pons (Code Review)]

Angel Pons has uploaded this change for review. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/42057 )

Change subject: Doc/mb/gigabyte/ga-h61m-s2pv: Fix in-circuit programming
......................................................................

Doc/mb/gigabyte/ga-h61m-s2pv: Fix in-circuit programming

It is NOT supported. The board is not meant to be flashed externally.

Change-Id: If422810e84355cb94004e5ca2b95d239804699d2
Signed-off-by: Angel Pons 
---
M Documentation/mainboard/gigabyte/ga-h61m-s2pv.md
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

git pull ssh://review.coreboot.org:29418/coreboot refs/changes/57/42057/1

diff --git a/Documentation/mainboard/gigabyte/ga-h61m-s2pv.md b/Documentation/mainboard/gigabyte/ga-h61m-s2pv.md
index 84b72ce..0632585 100644
--- a/Documentation/mainboard/gigabyte/ga-h61m-s2pv.md
+++ b/Documentation/mainboard/gigabyte/ga-h61m-s2pv.md
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
 +---------------------+------------+
 | Size                | 4 MiB      |
 +---------------------+------------+
-| In circuit flashing | Yes        |
+| In circuit flashing | No         |
 +---------------------+------------+
 | Package             | SOIC-8     |
 +---------------------+------------+

[Paul Menzel (Code Review)]

Paul Menzel has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/42057 )

Change subject: Doc/mb/gigabyte/ga-h61m-s2pv: Fix in-circuit programming
......................................................................

Patch Set 1: Code-Review+1

[Nico Huber (Code Review)]

Nico Huber has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/42057 )

Change subject: Doc/mb/gigabyte/ga-h61m-s2pv: Fix in-circuit programming
......................................................................

Patch Set 1: Code-Review+2

We should define somewhere how these tables are to be
interpreted. For this one "In circuit flashing" I would
argue that it's meaningless if we would set to Yes for
everything that works by chance. But I also wonder about
"Internal flashing" does that mean you can flash from
vendor? or just that a (flashrom) driver exists?

[Michael Niewöhner (Code Review)]

Michael Niewöhner has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/42057 )

Change subject: Doc/mb/gigabyte/ga-h61m-s2pv: Fix in-circuit programming
......................................................................

Patch Set 1: Code-Review+2

[Angel Pons (Code Review)]

Angel Pons has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/42057 )

Change subject: Doc/mb/gigabyte/ga-h61m-s2pv: Fix in-circuit programming
......................................................................

Patch Set 1:
> Patch Set 1: Code-Review+2
>
> We should define somewhere how these tables are to be
> interpreted. For this one "In circuit flashing" I would
> argue that it's meaningless if we would set to Yes for
> everything that works by chance. But I also wonder about
> "Internal flashing" does that mean you can flash from
> vendor? or just that a (flashrom) driver exists?

Right, I agree. Still, I don't want people to be misled by incorrect documentation, hence this change.

[Angel Pons (Code Review)]

Angel Pons has removed a vote from this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/42057 )

Change subject: Doc/mb/gigabyte/ga-h61m-s2pv: Fix in-circuit programming
......................................................................

Removed Verified+1 by build bot (Jenkins)

[Angel Pons (Code Review)]

Angel Pons has submitted this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/42057 )

Change subject: Doc/mb/gigabyte/ga-h61m-s2pv: Fix in-circuit programming
......................................................................

Doc/mb/gigabyte/ga-h61m-s2pv: Fix in-circuit programming

It is NOT supported. The board is not meant to be flashed externally.

Change-Id: If422810e84355cb94004e5ca2b95d239804699d2
Signed-off-by: Angel Pons 
Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/42057
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) 
Reviewed-by: Paul Menzel 
Reviewed-by: Nico Huber 
Reviewed-by: Michael Niewöhner
---
M Documentation/mainboard/gigabyte/ga-h61m-s2pv.md
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Approvals:
  build bot (Jenkins): Verified
  Nico Huber: Looks good to me, approved
  Paul Menzel: Looks good to me, but someone else must approve
  Michael Niewöhner: Looks good to me, approved

diff --git a/Documentation/mainboard/gigabyte/ga-h61m-s2pv.md b/Documentation/mainboard/gigabyte/ga-h61m-s2pv.md
index 84b72ce..0632585 100644
--- a/Documentation/mainboard/gigabyte/ga-h61m-s2pv.md
+++ b/Documentation/mainboard/gigabyte/ga-h61m-s2pv.md
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
 +---------------------+------------+
 | Size                | 4 MiB      |
 +---------------------+------------+
-| In circuit flashing | Yes        |
+| In circuit flashing | No         |
 +---------------------+------------+
 | Package             | SOIC-8     |
 +---------------------+------------+

[9elements QA (Code Review)]

9elements QA has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/42057 )

Change subject: Doc/mb/gigabyte/ga-h61m-s2pv: Fix in-circuit programming
......................................................................

Patch Set 3:

Automatic boot test returned (PASS/FAIL/TOTAL): 4/0/4
Emulation targets:
"QEMU x86 q35/ich9" using payload TianoCore : SUCCESS : https://lava.9esec.io/r/5174
"QEMU x86 q35/ich9" using payload SeaBIOS : SUCCESS : https://lava.9esec.io/r/5173
"QEMU x86 i440fx/piix4" using payload SeaBIOS : SUCCESS : https://lava.9esec.io/r/5172
"QEMU AArch64" using payload LinuxBoot_u-root_kexec : SUCCESS : https://lava.9esec.io/r/5171

Please note: This test is under development and might not be accurate at all!