On 06.06.2008 15:08, Ludwig Jaffe wrote:
Lets rewrite / improve flashrom!
A rewrite is unneccessary. Improvements are welcome.
I would like to see an universal function-pointer approach for the flash-dev handling, as I stated before in this mailing list.
We already have that.
For detection of flash the flash-identification according to the manufacturers can be used, so all functionpointers for the detect-routines can be tried.
We already do that.
To detect the mainboard I would additionally suggest looking for strings in the bios (if original-bios is used).
Sorry, that will not work reliably. We have some known false positives and some known false negatives.
For Coreboot, I would suggest to have a short text with manufacturer, board model, chipset, cpu so string search can find something.
We already have strings with board manufacturer+model. Chipset and CPU strings do not make sense.
Not to fall over all garbage the string search has to be filtered with known names as compaq, hp, ibm, asus, phoenix, award, and the like.
Using DMI is better for newer boards having DMI.
Sorry, that will not work reliably. We have some known false positives and some known false negatives.
So one can build different strategies for identifiing the mainboard. And use a functionpointer approach to do special tasks for the boards e.g. switching the bios to flash (some boards have a 2 bios-sockets)
We already do that.
e.g. unprotecting the boot-block. (e.g. my compaq SFF PC needs P34 soldered in and closed.) So an appropriate text has to be printed, if the board can not automagically disable write-protection etc. e.g. do other fancy stuff like unlocking the case.
We already can do that if anyone commits a text message.
Who is in charge for flashboot?
Do you mean flashrom? If so, your patches can be reviewed by the list.
We should organize and manage the change-requests for that little piece of soft.
Please post patches. We can discuss them.
Regards, Carl-Daniel