Re: [LinuxBIOS] BIOS Saver RD1
by Ken Fuchs
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 11:59:20AM +0900, Jun OKAJIMA wrote:
> > Probably, most guys here use BIOS Saver.
> > And it works well?
> > In mine, RD1 for PLCC gets not being writable suddenly.
> > I mean, it seems writable but # flash_rom -v fails.
> > I solved this problem by a quick hack.
> >
> > How about yours? You can write RD1 or W49F002U well?
> > Any problem happen?
Johnathan McDowell wrote:
> Even after that it's sometimes a bit flakey and I have to erase, then
> write it. I've put the board's original BIOS in the RD1 and am writing
> to the SST 39SF020A instead, which works without problems.
I've read posts about the RD1 that suggest its integrated flash device
is low quality and it may take 10 or more flash attempts to get a good
flash update to the RD1 flash device.
As a result, many RD1 BIOS Savior users will flash the commercial
BIOS image (or other known good BIOS image) into the RD1 integrated
flash device as many times as needed to get an image that boots.
Then use the original BIOS device to flash test BIOS image (usually
LinuxBIOS images among this group), since the original BIOS device
usually flashes OK on the first attempt.
I've used the RD1 in the above fashion with great success on the
Tyan S2885 mainboard.
The same RD1 would not work on the nVidia CK8-04 CRB mainboard.
I think the CK8-04 CRB requires a flash device that the RD1 does
not support. However, the RD1 worked well as an "do nothing" adapter
which allowed swapping the BIOS flash device between my flash burner
and the mainboard without any wear to the mainboard's BIOS socket.
BTW, my flash burner is an older Enhanced Willem Universal Programmer.
I got mine for only $60 US over a year ago. I've seen it for less
than $40 on eBay a few weeks ago. The newest model is going for about
$50 US. It does a LinuxBIOS flash in about 5 minutes; not bad for a
$60 burner. However, it does require changing DIP switches to match
an image for each device it can program. Great for the amateur or
professional with a small budget.
> > BTW, a cable of your RD1 is not broken?
> > I needed soldering to fix it.
> Mine was fine out of the box.
Mine cable and switch worked fine out of the box as well.
Sincerely,
Ken Fuchs <kfuchs(a)winternet.com> ami-mac-sun
11 years, 7 months
[LinuxBIOS] #40: Decide on common header #ifndef names or standards for usage
by LinuxBIOS
#40: Decide on common header #ifndef names or standards for usage
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Reporter: uwe | Owner: uwe
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: minor | Milestone: Cosmetic fixes
Component: code | Version: v2
Keywords: | Due_close: MM/DD/YYYY
Include_gantt: 0 | Dependencies:
Due_assign: MM/DD/YYYY | Patchstatus: there is no patch
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
We have lots of variations for "include guards" in the code:
{{{
_FOO
_FOO_H
__FOO_H
__FOO_H__
_FOO_H_
__FOO_DEFINED
...
}}}
Is there a special convention or agreement on when to use which? If yes,
it should be documented. If no, we should standardize on one format and
use it consistently.
--
Ticket URL: <http://tracker.linuxbios.org/trac/LinuxBIOS/ticket/40>
LinuxBIOS <http://www.linuxbios.org/>
11 years, 8 months
Re: [LinuxBIOS] r2550 - trunk/LinuxBIOSv2/util/flashrom
by Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
Hi!
svn(a)openbios.org wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Adam Kaufman <adam.kaufman(a)pinnacle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Reinauer <stepan(a)coresystems.de>
> Acked-by: Stefan Reinauer <stepan(a)coresystems.de>
> Acked-by: Adam Kaufman <adam.kaufman(a)pinnacle.com>
It seems there is still some confusion about Signed-off-by
and Acked-by. The meaning of Acked-by is a real subset of
Signed-off-by. So acking a patch you already signed off
for is totally meaningless and should be avoided. The
Linux kernel guys never ack and sign off the same patch.
Regards,
Carl-Daniel
--
http://www.hailfinger.org/
11 years, 8 months
[LinuxBIOS] #63: make flashrom work on Iwill DK8-HTX
by LinuxBIOS
#63: make flashrom work on Iwill DK8-HTX
---------------------------------------------------+------------------------
Reporter: stuge | Owner: somebody
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone:
Component: code | Version: v2
Keywords: flashrom iwill dk8-htx flash enable | Dependencies:
Patchstatus: patch needs review |
---------------------------------------------------+------------------------
flashrom does not work after booting LinuxBIOS on the Iwill DK8-HTX board,
according to mcqmcqmcq(a)fastmail.fm.
--
Ticket URL: <http://tracker.linuxbios.org/trac/LinuxBIOS/ticket/63>
LinuxBIOS <http://www.linuxbios.org/>
11 years, 9 months
[LinuxBIOS] #61: Add mtrr support for pentium m cpus
by LinuxBIOS
#61: Add mtrr support for pentium m cpus
-----------------------------------------------------+----------------------
Reporter: Jon Dufresne <jon.dufresne(a)gmail.com> | Owner: somebody
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone:
Component: code | Version: v2
Keywords: | Dependencies:
Patchstatus: patch needs review |
-----------------------------------------------------+----------------------
For cache to work the x86_setup_mtrrs() must be called. My cache would not
work without adding this to the cpu/intel/model_*/model_*_init.c file. My
cpu is a model_6dx I added this line to the other cpu's but only tested
model_6dx (that is the only one I have). However, they should work.
--
Ticket URL: <http://tracker.linuxbios.org/trac/LinuxBIOS/ticket/61>
LinuxBIOS <http://www.linuxbios.org/>
11 years, 9 months
[LinuxBIOS] #54: flashrom: Add install target to Makefile
by LinuxBIOS
#54: flashrom: Add install target to Makefile
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Reporter: uwe | Owner: uwe
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: minor | Milestone: Enhance the flashrom utility
Component: flashrom | Version:
Keywords: | Dependencies:
Patchstatus: patch needs review |
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Add an install target to the flashrom Makefile which installs flashrom
into /usr/local/bin.
Signed-off-by: Uwe Hermann <uwe(a)hermann-uwe.de>
---
--
Ticket URL: <http://tracker.linuxbios.org/trac/LinuxBIOS/ticket/54>
LinuxBIOS <http://www.linuxbios.org/>
11 years, 9 months
[LinuxBIOS] #39: 440BX header file with register definitions
by LinuxBIOS
#39: 440BX header file with register definitions
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Reporter: uwe | Owner: uwe
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: Going mainstream
Component: code | Version: v2
Keywords: | Due_close: MM/DD/YYYY
Include_gantt: 0 | Dependencies:
Due_assign: MM/DD/YYYY | Patchstatus: patch needs review
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Add an include file which contains the register definitions for the Intel
440BX northbridge.
Signed-off-by: Uwe Hermann <uwe(a)hermann-uwe.de>
---
Soon to be used in the 440BX port.
--
Ticket URL: <http://tracker.linuxbios.org/trac/LinuxBIOS/ticket/39>
LinuxBIOS <http://www.linuxbios.org/>
11 years, 9 months
[LinuxBIOS] #31: Do proper checking for flash erase for SST FWH parts
by LinuxBIOS
#31: Do proper checking for flash erase for SST FWH parts
---------------------------+------------------------------------------------
Reporter: stepan | Owner: stepan
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: Enhance the flashrom utility
Component: flashrom | Version: v2
Keywords: | Include_gantt: 0
Dependencies: | Due_assign: MM/DD/YYYY
Due_close: MM/DD/YYYY |
---------------------------+------------------------------------------------
Instead of checking the first byte only, the whole part is checked now.
This will detect any improper erase. The patch removes a FIXME. :-)
Signed-off-by: Stefan Reinauer <stepan(a)coresystems.de>
--
Ticket URL: <http://tracker.linuxbios.org/trac/LinuxBIOS/ticket/31>
LinuxBIOS <http://www.linuxbios.org/>
11 years, 9 months
[LinuxBIOS] #46: Clarify LinuxBIOS vs. OpenBIOS vs. Open Firmware vs. EFI vs. GNUFI etc.
by LinuxBIOS
#46: Clarify LinuxBIOS vs. OpenBIOS vs. Open Firmware vs. EFI vs. GNUFI etc.
--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: uwe | Owner: somebody
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: critical | Milestone: Going mainstream
Component: wiki/website/tracker | Version: v2
Keywords: | Due_close: MM/DD/YYYY
Include_gantt: 0 | Dependencies:
Due_assign: MM/DD/YYYY | Patchstatus: there is no patch
--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
There seems to be a lot of confusion about LinuxBIOS itself in the
"general public", but also when it comes to comparing LinuxBIOS to similar
projects and systems, e.g. OpenBIOS, Open Firmware, EFI, GNUFI, uboot,
etc. etc.
We should have an easily understandable (for non-techsavvy people) entry
in the FAQ which outlines what all those projects are about, their goals,
pros, and cons.
--
Ticket URL: <http://tracker.linuxbios.org/trac/LinuxBIOS/ticket/46>
LinuxBIOS <http://www.linuxbios.org/>
11 years, 9 months
