June 2015 - coreboot - mail.coreboot.org

[Bug?] 3 different bytes in VGAbios after upgrade to coreboot
by Vladimir June 2, 2015

June 2, 2015

I retrieved my vgabios via Linux kernel 3.19 (ubuntu 15.04) using this method - http://www.coreboot.org/VGA_support#Retrieval_via_Linux_kernel ; then I downloaded latest sources of SeaBIOS & Coreboot and built Coreboot using compiled SeaBIOS payload as well as vgabios file ( 1002,990b ) After coreboot installation I have decided to retrieve vgabios again, using exactly the same kernel and OS, and then diff'ed two vgabios files out of curiosity. To my surprise, they are slightly different! vgabios_before.bin - SHA1 checksum: e4d320eb278b0118c46e2e470e7154b12c41966d vgabios__after.bin - SHA1 checksum: a9e2ed569bbaaea283b5380a5f6c44fc4efc3da4 Here is a report about 3 bytes difference between them - http://www.diffnow.com/?report=2kwq3 (wait a few seconds while it loads) Then I teardown a laptop, and check if vgabios inside coreboot's image (flashed in chip) is 3 bytes different as well, but there was no difference against the original vgabios. So, it appears that, while loading vgabios from a flash chip, coreboot modifies it slightly. Although this tiny difference is not causing any graphical glitches or problems for me, this could be a result of a bug - which is not necessarily limited to my hardware ( Lenovo G505s ) , and maybe could lead to some other problems Please tell your opinion, is it a bug or I am wrong at something? Best regards, Vladimir Shipovalov

1 0

Re: [coreboot] AMD Pistachio build broken?
by David Hendricks June 2, 2015

June 2, 2015

Cool, an easy fix. Let us know how the MSI 7368 port progresses! On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Daniel Boyles <daniel.boyles(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Not a dumb q for a noob to coreboot like me. > I 'thought' I was using the coreboot toolchain, but forgot to reset the > CONFIG_ANY_TOOLCHAIN once I got the toolchain fully installed. I had > forgotten that I changed it somewhere along the line. > > After a 'make distclean' the Pistachio image compiles without error. > > So thank you for taking the time to respond :) > > On 22:17, Tue 02 Jun 2015 David Hendricks <dhendrix(a)google.com> wrote: > >> Dumb q - What toolchain are you using? Did you select "Allow building >> with any toolchain" (CONFIG_ANY_TOOLCHAIN=y)? >> >> I just pulled the latest sources (a4cf83d) and it compiled a Pistachio >> image without any issues. >> >> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Daniel Boyles <daniel.boyles(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi there, >>> >>> In our workshop we have many second hand motherboards which I would like >>> to attempt to port to coreboot. Possibly hundreds of boards covering dozens >>> of types from various manufacturers. >>> >>> One particular board we have many of is the MSI 7368. >>> >>> After following http://www.coreboot.org/Motherboard_Porting_Guide and >>> physically inspecting the board, I believe the closest starting point to be >>> the AMD Pistachio. (same northbridge and southbridge, but different >>> SuperIO). >>> >>> But when trying to 'make' the Pistachio coreboot, I get a whole lot of >>> errors : >>> https://gist.github.com/dboyles/32da2f7f9603920361c1 >>> >>> Would anyone please be so kind as to help cleaning that up? >>> I'm very keen on learning and ultimately contributing back. >>> If someone here is also willing and able to mentor me with that, I'd >>> highly appreciate it. >>> >>> Thanks in advance >>> Daniel >>> >>> -- >>> coreboot mailing list: coreboot(a)coreboot.org >>> http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> David Hendricks (dhendrix) >> Systems Software Engineer, Google Inc. >> > -- David Hendricks (dhendrix) Systems Software Engineer, Google Inc.

1 0

Re: [coreboot] AMD Pistachio build broken?
by Daniel Boyles June 2, 2015

June 2, 2015

Not a dumb q for a noob to coreboot like me. I 'thought' I was using the coreboot toolchain, but forgot to reset the CONFIG_ANY_TOOLCHAIN once I got the toolchain fully installed. I had forgotten that I changed it somewhere along the line. After a 'make distclean' the Pistachio image compiles without error. So thank you for taking the time to respond :) On 22:17, Tue 02 Jun 2015 David Hendricks <dhendrix(a)google.com> wrote: > Dumb q - What toolchain are you using? Did you select "Allow building with > any toolchain" (CONFIG_ANY_TOOLCHAIN=y)? > > I just pulled the latest sources (a4cf83d) and it compiled a Pistachio > image without any issues. > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Daniel Boyles <daniel.boyles(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi there, >> >> In our workshop we have many second hand motherboards which I would like >> to attempt to port to coreboot. Possibly hundreds of boards covering dozens >> of types from various manufacturers. >> >> One particular board we have many of is the MSI 7368. >> >> After following http://www.coreboot.org/Motherboard_Porting_Guide and >> physically inspecting the board, I believe the closest starting point to be >> the AMD Pistachio. (same northbridge and southbridge, but different >> SuperIO). >> >> But when trying to 'make' the Pistachio coreboot, I get a whole lot of >> errors : >> https://gist.github.com/dboyles/32da2f7f9603920361c1 >> >> Would anyone please be so kind as to help cleaning that up? >> I'm very keen on learning and ultimately contributing back. >> If someone here is also willing and able to mentor me with that, I'd >> highly appreciate it. >> >> Thanks in advance >> Daniel >> >> -- >> coreboot mailing list: coreboot(a)coreboot.org >> http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot >> > > > > -- > David Hendricks (dhendrix) > Systems Software Engineer, Google Inc. >

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Flashrom won't work with DediProg SF100 fw 6.5.03
by Steve Goodrich June 2, 2015

June 2, 2015

Thank you all (David, Duncan, Vadim, and others in private messages) for your help. Just to speed things up, I'm going to avoid the VERIFY pass (-n parameter). This takes it from 18-20 minutes to under a minute. This is workable for my short-term need, and I'll have time to look at in when I'm on the plane. -- Steve G. On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 1:51 PM, David Hendricks <dhendrix(a)google.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Steve Goodrich <steve.goodrich(a)se-eng.com > > wrote: > >> I'll give that a shot (thank you). >> >> I notice that the VERIFY is requesting 256 bytes at a time for all 8 >> MB... wouldn't it be better to use a page size from the flash chip (like 4 >> KB)? >> > > Yes. There is actually a patch to read the whole flash which speeds things > up a lot on Dediprog: > https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/#/c/240543/ > > Since that patch touches common code, though, the ME gremlin rears its > ugly head and we need to be careful not to read into a read-protected > region. So there's still a bit of work to be done (I started on that here: > https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/#/c/257191/) > > If either/both of those patches help, feel free to hijack them and so we > can make progress on this. > > >> Thanks! >> >> -- Steve G. >> >> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Duncan Laurie <dlaurie(a)chromium.org> >> wrote: >> >>> It looks like the code tries 12MHz by default but can be set to 24MHz >>> which is worth a try. >>> >>> I think the syntax would just be "-p dediprog:speed=24" >>> >>> -duncan >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Steve Goodrich < >>> steve.goodrich(a)se-eng.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I got the Chromium version of flashrom to work, but it takes 20 minutes >>>> to flash/verify the 8 MB device. So, while "working" is far better than >>>> "not working", it is a bit sluggish. :-) >>>> >>>> Any thoughts on speeding it up? >>>> >>>> -- Steve G. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Steve Goodrich < >>>> steve.goodrich(a)se-eng.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks, Duncan! I'll have a look. >>>>> >>>>> -- Steve G. >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Duncan Laurie <dlaurie(a)chromium.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 7:39 AM, Steve Goodrich < >>>>>> steve.goodrich(a)se-eng.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I have a DediProg SF100 programmer that I want to use with flashrom >>>>>>> under Linux. Unfortunately, the SF100 has firmware version 6.5.03 and I >>>>>>> can't use flashrom with it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm looking for a solution. Does anyone have (or know where/how I >>>>>>> can get): >>>>>>> 1) A version of SF100 firmware that will work with flashrom? >>>>>>> 2) A version of flashrom that will work with SF100 6.5.3? >>>>>>> 3) A Linux tool -- other than flashrom -- that will work with the >>>>>>> SF100 with its current firmware? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for any help you can provide! >>>>>>> -- Steve G. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Steve, >>>>>> >>>>>> There is a patch in the chromium flashrom tree that add support for >>>>>> firmware 6.0+ (which may or may not include 6.5.3) that does not seem to be >>>>>> in the upstream flashrom: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/flashrom/+/543101a… >>>>>> >>>>>> I suspect the chromium flashrom tree has diverged enough from >>>>>> upstream that it will not apply cleanly there but it is only a 130 line >>>>>> patch so it shouldn't be too bad to integrate if needed. >>>>>> >>>>>> -duncan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> coreboot mailing list: coreboot(a)coreboot.org >> http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot >> > > > > -- > David Hendricks (dhendrix) > Systems Software Engineer, Google Inc. >

1 0

Re: [coreboot] AMD Pistachio build broken?
by David Hendricks June 2, 2015

June 2, 2015

Dumb q - What toolchain are you using? Did you select "Allow building with any toolchain" (CONFIG_ANY_TOOLCHAIN=y)? I just pulled the latest sources (a4cf83d) and it compiled a Pistachio image without any issues. On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Daniel Boyles <daniel.boyles(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi there, > > In our workshop we have many second hand motherboards which I would like > to attempt to port to coreboot. Possibly hundreds of boards covering dozens > of types from various manufacturers. > > One particular board we have many of is the MSI 7368. > > After following http://www.coreboot.org/Motherboard_Porting_Guide and > physically inspecting the board, I believe the closest starting point to be > the AMD Pistachio. (same northbridge and southbridge, but different > SuperIO). > > But when trying to 'make' the Pistachio coreboot, I get a whole lot of > errors : > https://gist.github.com/dboyles/32da2f7f9603920361c1 > > Would anyone please be so kind as to help cleaning that up? > I'm very keen on learning and ultimately contributing back. > If someone here is also willing and able to mentor me with that, I'd > highly appreciate it. > > Thanks in advance > Daniel > > -- > coreboot mailing list: coreboot(a)coreboot.org > http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot > -- David Hendricks (dhendrix) Systems Software Engineer, Google Inc.

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Flashrom won't work with DediProg SF100 fw 6.5.03
by David Hendricks June 2, 2015

June 2, 2015

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Steve Goodrich <steve.goodrich(a)se-eng.com> wrote: > I'll give that a shot (thank you). > > I notice that the VERIFY is requesting 256 bytes at a time for all 8 MB... > wouldn't it be better to use a page size from the flash chip (like 4 KB)? > Yes. There is actually a patch to read the whole flash which speeds things up a lot on Dediprog: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/#/c/240543/ Since that patch touches common code, though, the ME gremlin rears its ugly head and we need to be careful not to read into a read-protected region. So there's still a bit of work to be done (I started on that here: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/#/c/257191/) If either/both of those patches help, feel free to hijack them and so we can make progress on this. > Thanks! > > -- Steve G. > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Duncan Laurie <dlaurie(a)chromium.org> > wrote: > >> It looks like the code tries 12MHz by default but can be set to 24MHz >> which is worth a try. >> >> I think the syntax would just be "-p dediprog:speed=24" >> >> -duncan >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Steve Goodrich < >> steve.goodrich(a)se-eng.com> wrote: >> >>> I got the Chromium version of flashrom to work, but it takes 20 minutes >>> to flash/verify the 8 MB device. So, while "working" is far better than >>> "not working", it is a bit sluggish. :-) >>> >>> Any thoughts on speeding it up? >>> >>> -- Steve G. >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Steve Goodrich < >>> steve.goodrich(a)se-eng.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks, Duncan! I'll have a look. >>>> >>>> -- Steve G. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Duncan Laurie <dlaurie(a)chromium.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 7:39 AM, Steve Goodrich < >>>>> steve.goodrich(a)se-eng.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I have a DediProg SF100 programmer that I want to use with flashrom >>>>>> under Linux. Unfortunately, the SF100 has firmware version 6.5.03 and I >>>>>> can't use flashrom with it. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm looking for a solution. Does anyone have (or know where/how I >>>>>> can get): >>>>>> 1) A version of SF100 firmware that will work with flashrom? >>>>>> 2) A version of flashrom that will work with SF100 6.5.3? >>>>>> 3) A Linux tool -- other than flashrom -- that will work with the >>>>>> SF100 with its current firmware? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for any help you can provide! >>>>>> -- Steve G. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Hi Steve, >>>>> >>>>> There is a patch in the chromium flashrom tree that add support for >>>>> firmware 6.0+ (which may or may not include 6.5.3) that does not seem to be >>>>> in the upstream flashrom: >>>>> >>>>> https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/flashrom/+/543101a… >>>>> >>>>> I suspect the chromium flashrom tree has diverged enough from upstream >>>>> that it will not apply cleanly there but it is only a 130 line patch so it >>>>> shouldn't be too bad to integrate if needed. >>>>> >>>>> -duncan >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > > -- > coreboot mailing list: coreboot(a)coreboot.org > http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot > -- David Hendricks (dhendrix) Systems Software Engineer, Google Inc.

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Flashrom won't work with DediProg SF100 fw 6.5.03
by Vadim Bendebury June 2, 2015

June 2, 2015

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Steve Goodrich <steve.goodrich(a)se-eng.com> wrote: > I got the Chromium version of flashrom to work, but it takes 20 minutes to > flash/verify the 8 MB device. So, while "working" is far better than "not > working", it is a bit sluggish. :-) > > Any thoughts on speeding it up? > usually only part of the image needs to be programmed. If you need to do this often, you might want to create a flash layout file and program only areas which need to be programmed. --vb > -- Steve G. > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Steve Goodrich <steve.goodrich(a)se-eng.com> > wrote: >> >> Thanks, Duncan! I'll have a look. >> >> -- Steve G. >> >> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Duncan Laurie <dlaurie(a)chromium.org> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 7:39 AM, Steve Goodrich >>> <steve.goodrich(a)se-eng.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> I have a DediProg SF100 programmer that I want to use with flashrom >>>> under Linux. Unfortunately, the SF100 has firmware version 6.5.03 and I >>>> can't use flashrom with it. >>>> >>>> I'm looking for a solution. Does anyone have (or know where/how I can >>>> get): >>>> 1) A version of SF100 firmware that will work with flashrom? >>>> 2) A version of flashrom that will work with SF100 6.5.3? >>>> 3) A Linux tool -- other than flashrom -- that will work with the SF100 >>>> with its current firmware? >>>> >>>> Thanks for any help you can provide! >>>> -- Steve G. >>>> >>> >>> Hi Steve, >>> >>> There is a patch in the chromium flashrom tree that add support for >>> firmware 6.0+ (which may or may not include 6.5.3) that does not seem to be >>> in the upstream flashrom: >>> >>> https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/flashrom/+/543101a… >>> >>> I suspect the chromium flashrom tree has diverged enough from upstream >>> that it will not apply cleanly there but it is only a 130 line patch so it >>> shouldn't be too bad to integrate if needed. >>> >>> -duncan >>> >> > > > -- > coreboot mailing list: coreboot(a)coreboot.org > http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Flashrom won't work with DediProg SF100 fw 6.5.03
by Steve Goodrich June 2, 2015

June 2, 2015

I'll give that a shot (thank you). I notice that the VERIFY is requesting 256 bytes at a time for all 8 MB... wouldn't it be better to use a page size from the flash chip (like 4 KB)? Thanks! -- Steve G. On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Duncan Laurie <dlaurie(a)chromium.org> wrote: > It looks like the code tries 12MHz by default but can be set to 24MHz > which is worth a try. > > I think the syntax would just be "-p dediprog:speed=24" > > -duncan > > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Steve Goodrich <steve.goodrich(a)se-eng.com > > wrote: > >> I got the Chromium version of flashrom to work, but it takes 20 minutes >> to flash/verify the 8 MB device. So, while "working" is far better than >> "not working", it is a bit sluggish. :-) >> >> Any thoughts on speeding it up? >> >> -- Steve G. >> >> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Steve Goodrich <steve.goodrich(a)se-eng.com >> > wrote: >> >>> Thanks, Duncan! I'll have a look. >>> >>> -- Steve G. >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Duncan Laurie <dlaurie(a)chromium.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 7:39 AM, Steve Goodrich < >>>> steve.goodrich(a)se-eng.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I have a DediProg SF100 programmer that I want to use with flashrom >>>>> under Linux. Unfortunately, the SF100 has firmware version 6.5.03 and I >>>>> can't use flashrom with it. >>>>> >>>>> I'm looking for a solution. Does anyone have (or know where/how I can >>>>> get): >>>>> 1) A version of SF100 firmware that will work with flashrom? >>>>> 2) A version of flashrom that will work with SF100 6.5.3? >>>>> 3) A Linux tool -- other than flashrom -- that will work with the >>>>> SF100 with its current firmware? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for any help you can provide! >>>>> -- Steve G. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Hi Steve, >>>> >>>> There is a patch in the chromium flashrom tree that add support for >>>> firmware 6.0+ (which may or may not include 6.5.3) that does not seem to be >>>> in the upstream flashrom: >>>> >>>> https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/flashrom/+/543101a… >>>> >>>> I suspect the chromium flashrom tree has diverged enough from upstream >>>> that it will not apply cleanly there but it is only a 130 line patch so it >>>> shouldn't be too bad to integrate if needed. >>>> >>>> -duncan >>>> >>>> >>> >> >

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Flashrom won't work with DediProg SF100 fw 6.5.03
by Duncan Laurie June 2, 2015

June 2, 2015

It looks like the code tries 12MHz by default but can be set to 24MHz which is worth a try. I think the syntax would just be "-p dediprog:speed=24" -duncan On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Steve Goodrich <steve.goodrich(a)se-eng.com> wrote: > I got the Chromium version of flashrom to work, but it takes 20 minutes to > flash/verify the 8 MB device. So, while "working" is far better than "not > working", it is a bit sluggish. :-) > > Any thoughts on speeding it up? > > -- Steve G. > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Steve Goodrich <steve.goodrich(a)se-eng.com> > wrote: > >> Thanks, Duncan! I'll have a look. >> >> -- Steve G. >> >> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Duncan Laurie <dlaurie(a)chromium.org> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 7:39 AM, Steve Goodrich < >>> steve.goodrich(a)se-eng.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I have a DediProg SF100 programmer that I want to use with flashrom >>>> under Linux. Unfortunately, the SF100 has firmware version 6.5.03 and I >>>> can't use flashrom with it. >>>> >>>> I'm looking for a solution. Does anyone have (or know where/how I can >>>> get): >>>> 1) A version of SF100 firmware that will work with flashrom? >>>> 2) A version of flashrom that will work with SF100 6.5.3? >>>> 3) A Linux tool -- other than flashrom -- that will work with the SF100 >>>> with its current firmware? >>>> >>>> Thanks for any help you can provide! >>>> -- Steve G. >>>> >>>> >>> Hi Steve, >>> >>> There is a patch in the chromium flashrom tree that add support for >>> firmware 6.0+ (which may or may not include 6.5.3) that does not seem to be >>> in the upstream flashrom: >>> >>> https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/flashrom/+/543101a… >>> >>> I suspect the chromium flashrom tree has diverged enough from upstream >>> that it will not apply cleanly there but it is only a 130 line patch so it >>> shouldn't be too bad to integrate if needed. >>> >>> -duncan >>> >>> >> >

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Flashrom won't work with DediProg SF100 fw 6.5.03
by Steve Goodrich June 2, 2015

June 2, 2015

I got the Chromium version of flashrom to work, but it takes 20 minutes to flash/verify the 8 MB device. So, while "working" is far better than "not working", it is a bit sluggish. :-) Any thoughts on speeding it up? -- Steve G. On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Steve Goodrich <steve.goodrich(a)se-eng.com> wrote: > Thanks, Duncan! I'll have a look. > > -- Steve G. > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Duncan Laurie <dlaurie(a)chromium.org> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 7:39 AM, Steve Goodrich <steve.goodrich(a)se-eng.com >> > wrote: >> >>> I have a DediProg SF100 programmer that I want to use with flashrom >>> under Linux. Unfortunately, the SF100 has firmware version 6.5.03 and I >>> can't use flashrom with it. >>> >>> I'm looking for a solution. Does anyone have (or know where/how I can >>> get): >>> 1) A version of SF100 firmware that will work with flashrom? >>> 2) A version of flashrom that will work with SF100 6.5.3? >>> 3) A Linux tool -- other than flashrom -- that will work with the SF100 >>> with its current firmware? >>> >>> Thanks for any help you can provide! >>> -- Steve G. >>> >>> >> Hi Steve, >> >> There is a patch in the chromium flashrom tree that add support for >> firmware 6.0+ (which may or may not include 6.5.3) that does not seem to be >> in the upstream flashrom: >> >> https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/flashrom/+/543101a… >> >> I suspect the chromium flashrom tree has diverged enough from upstream >> that it will not apply cleanly there but it is only a 130 line patch so it >> shouldn't be too bad to integrate if needed. >> >> -duncan >> >> >

1 0