[LinuxBIOS] flashrom support for AMD Geode CS5536

[Lane Brooks]

Attached is a patch that enables AMD Geode CS5536 chipset support.  I 
have tested it successfully on a MSM800 board from digital logic.  It 
does, however, have a few issues that I would like some feedback on.

In my discussions with Marc Jones, Geode systems write protect the BIOS 
via RCONFs (cache settings similar to MTRRs). Unlocking requires 
changing MSR 0x1808 top byte to 0x22. Reading and writing to the msr, 
however, requires instrucitons rdmsr/wrmsr, which are ring0 privileged 
instructions so only the kernel can do the read/write.  So my patch uses 
the msr kernel module to access these instructions from user space using 
the /dev/cpu/0/msr device.

My questions are:
- I do not think this is portable beyond linux.  Is that an issue?

- My code assumes the msr kernel module is already loaded.  Is there a 
way to force a kernel module to load from the C code?  My code does die 
gracefully with a message reminding them to load the kernel module if 
things fail.

- It seems like there should be a way to revert the msr back after 
flashing is completed to put the bios back in write protect mode.  Is 
there a cleanup mechanism available?  Something like disable_flash...


Thanks,
Lane Brooks

[Stefan Reinauer]

Dear Lane!

Thank you very much for your patch.

* Lane Brooks <lbrooks(a)MIT.EDU&gt; [071002 18:20]:
 - It seems like there should be a way to revert the msr back after
flashing 
 is completed to put the bios back in write protect mode.  Is there a 
 cleanup mechanism available?  Something like disable_flash...
Unfortunately no. Any patches that generically implement such a
mechanism are welcome though!


 +#define _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE
 +#include <sys/types.h>
 +#include <sys/stat.h>
 +#include <fcntl.h>
 +#include <unistd.h>
 +	unsigned long addr = 0x1808;
 +	lseek64(fd_msr, (off64_t) addr, SEEK_SET);
Why do you use/need large file support for seeking to an offset of
0x1808 ?

Please sign off your patches:
http://linuxbios.org/index.php/Development_Guidelines#How_to_contribute


-- 
coresystems GmbH • Brahmsstr. 16 • D-79104 Freiburg i. Br.
      Tel.: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
Email: info(a)coresystems.de  • http://www.coresystems.de/
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Freiburg • HRB 7656
Geschäftsführer: Stefan Reinauer • Ust-IdNr.: DE245674866

[Jordan Crouse]

On 02/10/07 18:27 +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
 Dear Lane!
 
 Thank you very much for your patch.
 
 * Lane Brooks <lbrooks(a)MIT.EDU&gt; [071002 18:20]:
 > - It seems like there should be a way to revert the msr back after flashing 
 > is completed to put the bios back in write protect mode.  Is there a 
 > cleanup mechanism available?  Something like disable_flash...
 
 Unfortunately no. Any patches that generically implement such a
 mechanism are welcome though!
 
 
 > +#define _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE
 > +#include <sys/types.h>
 > +#include <sys/stat.h>
 > +#include <fcntl.h>
 > +#include <unistd.h>
 
 > +	unsigned long addr = 0x1808;
 > +	lseek64(fd_msr, (off64_t) addr, SEEK_SET);
 
 Why do you use/need large file support for seeking to an offset of
 0x1808 ?
Thats original generic MSR behavior from rdmsr/wrmsr - we need the
large file support to access the high MSRs (0x80000000) and
above.  Its not needed in this case - but is it hurting?

Jordan
-- 
Jordan Crouse
Systems Software Development Engineer 
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.

[ron minnich]

BTW there is another unsolved issue here. The chip can support FWH or
LPC mode. I don't know how we should be handling that option.

ron

[Lane Brooks]

Jordan Crouse wrote:
 On 02/10/07 18:27 +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> Dear Lane!
>
> Thank you very much for your patch.
>
> * Lane Brooks <lbrooks(a)MIT.EDU&gt; [071002 18:20]:
>> - It seems like there should be a way to revert the msr back after flashing 
>> is completed to put the bios back in write protect mode.  Is there a 
>> cleanup mechanism available?  Something like disable_flash...
> Unfortunately no. Any patches that generically implement such a
> mechanism are welcome though!
>
>
>> +#define _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE
>> +#include <sys/types.h>
>> +#include <sys/stat.h>
>> +#include <fcntl.h>
>> +#include <unistd.h>
>> +	unsigned long addr = 0x1808;
>> +	lseek64(fd_msr, (off64_t) addr, SEEK_SET);
> Why do you use/need large file support for seeking to an offset of
> 0x1808 ?
 
 Thats original generic MSR behavior from rdmsr/wrmsr - we need the
 large file support to access the high MSRs (0x80000000) and
 above.  Its not needed in this case - but is it hurting?
 
 Jordan

Jordan brings up a point that I forgot to mention previously.  This is 
my first time contributing to an open source project, and I am not 
extremely familiar with protocols in terms of acknowledging code.  I 
based this patch on rdmsr/wrmsr code I found on the OLPC webpage, and it 
seems attributable to Ron Minnich.  Should I acknowledge this fact in 
the code?

Furthermore, I debated whether I should include the generic rdmsr/wrmsr 
functions rather than incorporating them into the flash_enable_cs5526() 
function.  I chose not to include the generic functions because it 
seemed a cleaner approach in the grand scheme of the flashrom code base 
given that non of the other chipset enable functions seem to require 
helper functions.  Any feedback on this point?  Will other chipsets ever 
need to use the MSR to unlock the bios?

Lane

[Jordan Crouse]

On 02/10/07 11:32 -0600, Lane Brooks wrote:
 Jordan Crouse wrote:
 >On 02/10/07 18:27 +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
 >>Dear Lane!
 >>
 >>Thank you very much for your patch.
 >>
 >>* Lane Brooks <lbrooks(a)MIT.EDU&gt; [071002 18:20]:
 >>>- It seems like there should be a way to revert the msr back after 
 >>>flashing is completed to put the bios back in write protect mode.  Is 
 >>>there a cleanup mechanism available?  Something like disable_flash...
 >>Unfortunately no. Any patches that generically implement such a
 >>mechanism are welcome though!
 >>
 >>
 >>>+#define _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE
 >>>+#include <sys/types.h>
 >>>+#include <sys/stat.h>
 >>>+#include <fcntl.h>
 >>>+#include <unistd.h>
 >>>+	unsigned long addr = 0x1808;
 >>>+	lseek64(fd_msr, (off64_t) addr, SEEK_SET);
 >>Why do you use/need large file support for seeking to an offset of
 >>0x1808 ?
 >
 >Thats original generic MSR behavior from rdmsr/wrmsr - we need the
 >large file support to access the high MSRs (0x80000000) and
 >above.  Its not needed in this case - but is it hurting?
 >
 >Jordan
 
 
 Jordan brings up a point that I forgot to mention previously.  This is 
 my first time contributing to an open source project, and I am not 
 extremely familiar with protocols in terms of acknowledging code.  I 
 based this patch on rdmsr/wrmsr code I found on the OLPC webpage, and it 
 seems attributable to Ron Minnich.  Should I acknowledge this fact in 
 the code?
I can't remember if it was Ron or I that wrote them - maybe a little
of both.  Those were good times.. :)

Anyway - I am of the opinion that this code is of such trival nature that
it borders on the obvious - its neither enlightening nor novel - and as 
such attribution probably isn't called for - unless you really want to.

Jordan
-- 
Jordan Crouse
Systems Software Development Engineer 
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.

[ron minnich]

On 10/2/07, Lane Brooks <lbrooks(a)mit.edu&gt; wrote:

 Jordan brings up a point that I forgot to mention previously.  This
is
 my first time contributing to an open source project, and I am not
 extremely familiar with protocols in terms of acknowledging code.  I
 based this patch on rdmsr/wrmsr code I found on the OLPC webpage, and it
 seems attributable to Ron Minnich.  Should I acknowledge this fact in
 the code?
Ollie Lo wrote that, but it's pretty standard stuff. No need I think
unless Ollie wants it.

ron

[Li-Ta Lo]

On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 12:10 -0700, ron minnich wrote:
 On 10/2/07, Lane Brooks <lbrooks(a)mit.edu&gt; wrote:
 
 > Jordan brings up a point that I forgot to mention previously.  This is
 > my first time contributing to an open source project, and I am not
 > extremely familiar with protocols in terms of acknowledging code.  I
 > based this patch on rdmsr/wrmsr code I found on the OLPC webpage, and it
 > seems attributable to Ron Minnich.  Should I acknowledge this fact in
 > the code?
 
 Ollie Lo wrote that, but it's pretty standard stuff. No need I think
 unless Ollie wants it.
It was nothing. Take it as public domain if I didn't put any license in 
it.

Ollie

[Jordan Crouse]

On 02/10/07 10:20 -0600, Lane Brooks wrote:
 Attached is a patch that enables AMD Geode CS5536 chipset support.  I

 have tested it successfully on a MSM800 board from digital logic.  It 
 does, however, have a few issues that I would like some feedback on.
 
 In my discussions with Marc Jones, Geode systems write protect the BIOS 
 via RCONFs (cache settings similar to MTRRs). Unlocking requires 
 changing MSR 0x1808 top byte to 0x22. Reading and writing to the msr, 
 however, requires instrucitons rdmsr/wrmsr, which are ring0 privileged 
 instructions so only the kernel can do the read/write.  So my patch uses 
 the msr kernel module to access these instructions from user space using 
 the /dev/cpu/0/msr device.
 
 My questions are:
 - I do not think this is portable beyond linux.  Is that an issue?
Right now, no.  Any other *nixish OS will have to solve the MSR problem
for themselves.  If they chose something different, then we'll cross that
bridge when we get to it.

 - My code assumes the msr kernel module is already loaded.  Is there
a 
 way to force a kernel module to load from the C code?  My code does die 
 gracefully with a message reminding them to load the kernel module if 
 things fail.
Thats the best we can do, without getting more non-portable. I think.

Jordan

[ron minnich]

On 10/2/07, Lane Brooks <lbrooks(a)mit.edu&gt; wrote:
 Attached is a patch that enables AMD Geode CS5536 chipset support. 
I
 have tested it successfully on a MSM800 board from digital logic.  It
 does, however, have a few issues that I would like some feedback on.

 In my discussions with Marc Jones, Geode systems write protect the BIOS
 via RCONFs (cache settings similar to MTRRs). Unlocking requires
 changing MSR 0x1808 top byte to 0x22. Reading and writing to the msr,
 however, requires instrucitons rdmsr/wrmsr, which are ring0 privileged
 instructions so only the kernel can do the read/write.  So my patch uses
 the msr kernel module to access these instructions from user space using
 the /dev/cpu/0/msr device.

 My questions are:
 - I do not think this is portable beyond linux.  Is that an issue?
it's not, but it is not really an issue at present.
 - My code assumes the msr kernel module is already loaded.  Is there a
 way to force a kernel module to load from the C code?  My code does die
 gracefully with a message reminding them to load the kernel module if
 things fail.
it is possible I think to have udev help with this, but I am not sure.
Graceful failure is certainly a good start.

 - It seems like there should be a way to revert the msr back after
 flashing is completed to put the bios back in write protect mode.  Is
 there a cleanup mechanism available?  Something like disable_flash...
I thought that was in the structure of flashrom. Now that I look, it
seems like we lost it!
I propose this at the end of flashrom:
board_flash_disable(lb_vendor, lb_part);
chipset_flash_disable(chipset);

but we'll need to change some things to make this all work. We need a
penable struct * to use for the disable; no point in searching each
time we touch a chip. or not?

one comment on your patch: you use /dev/cpu/0/msr. This is great for a
single-cpu machine, and will always be fine on  geode. Lots of times,
people use one piece of flashrom to write another. Imagine some future
hacker, in a year or two, who has copied your code for some SMP
system, not understanding why sometimes flashrom fails (i.e. they set
CPU0 msr but end up running on cpu1). We had this very problem when we
were getting graphics going (and, earlier, SMP going). I suggest a
comment as to why the /dev/cpu/0/msr is always safe on geode, but
future hackers beware on SMP. Or something like that.

That's up to you, however :-)

If you had a signed-off-by line, I would ack and commit for you :-)

ron

ron

[Stefan Reinauer]

* ron minnich <rminnich(a)gmail.com&gt; [071002 18:38]:
 > My questions are:
 > - I do not think this is portable beyond linux.  Is that an issue?
 
 it's not, but it is not really an issue at present.
Maybe the code should be #ifdef'ed __linux__ with an #else case just
printing a warning a la "Not supported by this OS yet."

 I thought that was in the structure of flashrom. Now that I look, it
 seems like we lost it!
Flashrom never did any such cleanup. I was about to implement it when we
renamed the tool but then I stumbled upon this:

printf("OK, only ENABLING flash write, but NOT FLASHING.\n");

So obviously at some point there was a sense in leaving the system in
such a state. But I want to propose that we drop this behavior and
instead try to always leave the machine in the state we entered it.
Especially when not flashing.

While one might want to mess with an unprotected flash on purpose, for
99% of the cases this is just opening another security issue.
That one % that theoretically might use this as a feature is welcome to
improve the flashrom utility instead of running it for flash
unprotection before running another utility.

 I propose this at the end of flashrom:
 board_flash_disable(lb_vendor, lb_part);
 chipset_flash_disable(chipset);
yepp. Agreed.


 but we'll need to change some things to make this all work. We
need a
 penable struct * to use for the disable; no point in searching each
 time we touch a chip. or not?
To achieve this

struct board_pciid_enable *board in board_enable.c:board_flash_enable() 

and

enables[i] in chipset_enable.c:chipset_flash_enable() 

should be globally available.



-- 
coresystems GmbH • Brahmsstr. 16 • D-79104 Freiburg i. Br.
      Tel.: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
Email: info(a)coresystems.de  • http://www.coresystems.de/
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Freiburg • HRB 7656
Geschäftsführer: Stefan Reinauer • Ust-IdNr.: DE245674866

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

On 02.10.2007 19:01, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
 * ron minnich <rminnich(a)gmail.com&gt; [071002 18:38]:
>> My questions are:
>> - I do not think this is portable beyond linux.  Is that an issue?
> it's not, but it is not really an issue at present.
 
 Maybe the code should be #ifdef'ed __linux__ with an #else case just
 printing a warning a la "Not supported by this OS yet."
 
> I thought that was in the structure of flashrom. Now that I look, it
> seems like we lost it!
 
 Flashrom never did any such cleanup. I was about to implement it when we
 renamed the tool but then I stumbled upon this:
 
 printf("OK, only ENABLING flash write, but NOT FLASHING.\n");
 
 So obviously at some point there was a sense in leaving the system in
 such a state. But I want to propose that we drop this behavior and
 instead try to always leave the machine in the state we entered it.
 Especially when not flashing.
 
 While one might want to mess with an unprotected flash on purpose, for
 99% of the cases this is just opening another security issue.
 That one % that theoretically might use this as a feature is welcome to
 improve the flashrom utility instead of running it for flash
 unprotection before running another utility.
Agreed.

> I propose this at the end of flashrom:
> board_flash_disable(lb_vendor, lb_part);
> chipset_flash_disable(chipset);
 
 yepp. Agreed.
Disagree. We still have to store the previous state to be able to revert
to it.

> but we'll need to change some things to make this all work.
We need a
> penable struct * to use for the disable; no point in searching each
> time we touch a chip. or not?
 
 To achieve this
 
 struct board_pciid_enable *board in board_enable.c:board_flash_enable() 
 
 and
 
 enables[i] in chipset_enable.c:chipset_flash_enable() 
 
 should be globally available.
Different proposal:
If a particular enable function has been run successfully, it should
store a pointer to the corresponding cleanup function and a pointer to
the data which has to be restored.

At least the restore information has to be available somewhere.
Otherwise the exercise is totally pointless since we can't know the
state before the enable function was run.

Carl-Daniel

[Lane Brooks]

Here is the patch again with an updated comment regarding SMP and a 
signed-off-by line.

Signed-off-by: Lane Brooks <lbrooks(a)mit.edu&gt;

ron minnich wrote:
 On 10/2/07, Lane Brooks <lbrooks(a)mit.edu&gt; wrote:
> Attached is a patch that enables AMD Geode CS5536 chipset support.  I
> have tested it successfully on a MSM800 board from digital logic.  It
> does, however, have a few issues that I would like some feedback on.
>
> In my discussions with Marc Jones, Geode systems write protect the BIOS
> via RCONFs (cache settings similar to MTRRs). Unlocking requires
> changing MSR 0x1808 top byte to 0x22. Reading and writing to the msr,
> however, requires instrucitons rdmsr/wrmsr, which are ring0 privileged
> instructions so only the kernel can do the read/write.  So my patch uses
> the msr kernel module to access these instructions from user space using
> the /dev/cpu/0/msr device.
>
> My questions are:
> - I do not think this is portable beyond linux.  Is that an issue?
 
 it's not, but it is not really an issue at present.
> - My code assumes the msr kernel module is already loaded.  Is there a
> way to force a kernel module to load from the C code?  My code does die
> gracefully with a message reminding them to load the kernel module if
> things fail.
 
 it is possible I think to have udev help with this, but I am not sure.
 Graceful failure is certainly a good start.
 
> - It seems like there should be a way to revert the msr back after
> flashing is completed to put the bios back in write protect mode.  Is
> there a cleanup mechanism available?  Something like disable_flash...
 
 I thought that was in the structure of flashrom. Now that I look, it
 seems like we lost it!
 I propose this at the end of flashrom:
 board_flash_disable(lb_vendor, lb_part);
 chipset_flash_disable(chipset);
 
 but we'll need to change some things to make this all work. We need a
 penable struct * to use for the disable; no point in searching each
 time we touch a chip. or not?
 
 one comment on your patch: you use /dev/cpu/0/msr. This is great for a
 single-cpu machine, and will always be fine on  geode. Lots of times,
 people use one piece of flashrom to write another. Imagine some future
 hacker, in a year or two, who has copied your code for some SMP
 system, not understanding why sometimes flashrom fails (i.e. they set
 CPU0 msr but end up running on cpu1). We had this very problem when we
 were getting graphics going (and, earlier, SMP going). I suggest a
 comment as to why the /dev/cpu/0/msr is always safe on geode, but
 future hackers beware on SMP. Or something like that.
 
 That's up to you, however :-)
 
 If you had a signed-off-by line, I would ack and commit for you :-)
 
 ron
 
 ron

[Lane Brooks]

Here it is again with the patch actually attached.

Lane Brooks wrote:
 Here is the patch again with an updated comment regarding SMP and a 
 signed-off-by line.
 
 Signed-off-by: Lane Brooks <lbrooks(a)mit.edu&gt;
 
 ron minnich wrote:
> On 10/2/07, Lane Brooks <lbrooks(a)mit.edu&gt; wrote:
>> Attached is a patch that enables AMD Geode CS5536 chipset support.  I
>> have tested it successfully on a MSM800 board from digital logic.  It
>> does, however, have a few issues that I would like some feedback on.
>>
>> In my discussions with Marc Jones, Geode systems write protect the BIOS
>> via RCONFs (cache settings similar to MTRRs). Unlocking requires
>> changing MSR 0x1808 top byte to 0x22. Reading and writing to the msr,
>> however, requires instrucitons rdmsr/wrmsr, which are ring0 privileged
>> instructions so only the kernel can do the read/write.  So my patch uses
>> the msr kernel module to access these instructions from user space using
>> the /dev/cpu/0/msr device.
>>
>> My questions are:
>> - I do not think this is portable beyond linux.  Is that an issue?
> it's not, but it is not really an issue at present.
>> - My code assumes the msr kernel module is already loaded.  Is there a
>> way to force a kernel module to load from the C code?  My code does die
>> gracefully with a message reminding them to load the kernel module if
>> things fail.
> it is possible I think to have udev help with this, but I am not sure.
> Graceful failure is certainly a good start.
>
>> - It seems like there should be a way to revert the msr back after
>> flashing is completed to put the bios back in write protect mode.  Is
>> there a cleanup mechanism available?  Something like disable_flash...
> I thought that was in the structure of flashrom. Now that I look, it
> seems like we lost it!
> I propose this at the end of flashrom:
> board_flash_disable(lb_vendor, lb_part);
> chipset_flash_disable(chipset);
>
> but we'll need to change some things to make this all work. We need a
> penable struct * to use for the disable; no point in searching each
> time we touch a chip. or not?
>
> one comment on your patch: you use /dev/cpu/0/msr. This is great for a
> single-cpu machine, and will always be fine on  geode. Lots of times,
> people use one piece of flashrom to write another. Imagine some future
> hacker, in a year or two, who has copied your code for some SMP
> system, not understanding why sometimes flashrom fails (i.e. they set
> CPU0 msr but end up running on cpu1). We had this very problem when we
> were getting graphics going (and, earlier, SMP going). I suggest a
> comment as to why the /dev/cpu/0/msr is always safe on geode, but
> future hackers beware on SMP. Or something like that.
>
> That's up to you, however :-)
>
> If you had a signed-off-by line, I would ack and commit for you :-)
>
> ron
>
> ron

[Marc Jones]

Lane Brooks wrote:
 Here it is again with the patch actually attached.
 
 Lane Brooks wrote:
> Here is the patch again with an updated comment regarding SMP and a 
> signed-off-by line.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lane Brooks <lbrooks(a)mit.edu&gt;
>
> ron minnich wrote:
>> On 10/2/07, Lane Brooks <lbrooks(a)mit.edu&gt; wrote:
>>> Attached is a patch that enables AMD Geode CS5536 chipset support.  I
>>> have tested it successfully on a MSM800 board from digital logic.  It
>>> does, however, have a few issues that I would like some feedback on.
>>>
>>> In my discussions with Marc Jones, Geode systems write protect the BIOS
>>> via RCONFs (cache settings similar to MTRRs). Unlocking requires
>>> changing MSR 0x1808 top byte to 0x22. Reading and writing to the msr,
>>> however, requires instrucitons rdmsr/wrmsr, which are ring0 privileged
>>> instructions so only the kernel can do the read/write.  So my patch 
>>> uses
>>> the msr kernel module to access these instructions from user space 
>>> using
>>> the /dev/cpu/0/msr device.
>>>
>>> My questions are:
>>> - I do not think this is portable beyond linux.  Is that an issue?
>> it's not, but it is not really an issue at present.
>>> - My code assumes the msr kernel module is already loaded.  Is there a
>>> way to force a kernel module to load from the C code?  My code does die
>>> gracefully with a message reminding them to load the kernel module if
>>> things fail.
>> it is possible I think to have udev help with this, but I am not sure.
>> Graceful failure is certainly a good start.
>>
>>> - It seems like there should be a way to revert the msr back after
>>> flashing is completed to put the bios back in write protect mode.  Is
>>> there a cleanup mechanism available?  Something like disable_flash...
>> I thought that was in the structure of flashrom. Now that I look, it
>> seems like we lost it!
>> I propose this at the end of flashrom:
>> board_flash_disable(lb_vendor, lb_part);
>> chipset_flash_disable(chipset);
>>
>> but we'll need to change some things to make this all work. We need a
>> penable struct * to use for the disable; no point in searching each
>> time we touch a chip. or not?
>>
>> one comment on your patch: you use /dev/cpu/0/msr. This is great for a
>> single-cpu machine, and will always be fine on  geode. Lots of times,
>> people use one piece of flashrom to write another. Imagine some future
>> hacker, in a year or two, who has copied your code for some SMP
>> system, not understanding why sometimes flashrom fails (i.e. they set
>> CPU0 msr but end up running on cpu1). We had this very problem when we
>> were getting graphics going (and, earlier, SMP going). I suggest a
>> comment as to why the /dev/cpu/0/msr is always safe on geode, but
>> future hackers beware on SMP. Or something like that.
>>
>> That's up to you, however :-)
>>
>> If you had a signed-off-by line, I would ack and commit for you :-)
>>
>> ron
>>
>> ron
>
Did anyone ack and commit this last version?

Marc



-- 
Marc Jones
Senior Firmware Engineer
[phone] Office
mailto:[e-mail]
http://www.amd.com/embeddedprocessors

[Jordan Crouse]

On 02/10/07 10:20 -0600, Lane Brooks wrote:
 Attached is a patch that enables AMD Geode CS5536 chipset support.  I

 have tested it successfully on a MSM800 board from digital logic.  It 
 does, however, have a few issues that I would like some feedback on.
NAK for now - its not working on the Norwich.  I am debugging.

Jordan

[Jordan Crouse]

On 02/10/07 10:57 -0600, Jordan Crouse wrote:
 On 02/10/07 10:20 -0600, Lane Brooks wrote:
 > Attached is a patch that enables AMD Geode CS5536 chipset support.  I 
 > have tested it successfully on a MSM800 board from digital logic.  It 
 > does, however, have a few issues that I would like some feedback on.
 
 NAK for now - its not working on the Norwich.  I am debugging.
NAK my NAK (making it an ACK).  I put in a larger ROM and confused the
MSR.

Jordan
-- 
Jordan Crouse
Systems Software Development Engineer 
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.

[Peter Stuge]

On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 11:38:02AM -0600, Jordan Crouse wrote:
 On 02/10/07 10:57 -0600, Jordan Crouse wrote:
 > On 02/10/07 10:20 -0600, Lane Brooks wrote:
 > > Attached is a patch that enables AMD Geode CS5536 chipset support.  I 
 > > have tested it successfully on a MSM800 board from digital logic.  It 
 > > does, however, have a few issues that I would like some feedback on.
 > 
 > NAK for now - its not working on the Norwich.  I am debugging.
 
 NAK my NAK (making it an ACK).
 I put in a larger ROM and confused the MSR.
Has this been resolved? Possibly in that commit which no longer
blindly sets the RCONF value but only flips the relevant bits?


//Peter