[PATCH] flashrom: List supported/nonsupported boards

[Uwe Hermann]

See patch.

Uwe.

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

On 17.05.2009 01:23, Uwe Hermann wrote:
> List all boards which are:
>
> Supported out of the box (no flash enables required)
>
> Verifiably not yet working (unknown flash enable)
>
> Also, move some structs to flash.h in preparation for later wiki
> output support.
>
> Signed-off-by: Uwe Hermann

Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger

but please see the comment below.
> Index: flash.h
>
> --- flash.h	(Revision 522)
> +++ flash.h	(Arbeitskopie)
> @@ -168,6 +168,71 @@
> +/**
> We use 2 sets of IDs here, you're free to choose which is which. This
> is to provide a very high degree of certainty when matching a board on
> the basis of subsystem/card IDs. As not every vendor handles
> subsystem/card IDs in a sane manner.
> Keep the second set NULLed if it should be ignored. Keep the subsystem IDs
> NULLed if they don't identify the board fully. But please take care to
> provide an as complete set of pci ids as possible; autodetection is the
> preferred behaviour and we would like to make sure that matches are unique.
> The coreboot ids are used two fold. When running with a coreboot firmware,
> the ids uniquely matches the coreboot board identification string. When a
> legacy bios is installed and when autodetection is not possible, these ids
> can be used to identify the board through the -m command line argument.
> When a board is identified through its coreboot ids (in both cases), the
> main pci ids are still required to match, as a safeguard.
> */

Can you move the comment above back to the old location (i.e. leave it
unchanged)? It serves as a guideline for what to stuff in
board_pciid_enables[] and should be near board_pciid_enables[] to help
implementers. (Admittedly, having that comment before the struct
definition was less than optimal.)

Regards,
Carl-Daniel

[Uwe Hermann]

On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 01:30:14AM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> On 17.05.2009 01:23, Uwe Hermann wrote:
> > List all boards which are:
> >
> > Supported out of the box (no flash enables required)
> >
> > Verifiably not yet working (unknown flash enable)
> >
> > Also, move some structs to flash.h in preparation for later wiki
> > output support.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Uwe Hermann
>
> Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger

Thanks, r523.
> Can you move the comment above back to the old location (i.e. leave it
> unchanged)?

Yeah, true, it should stay where it is.

Uwe.

[Myles Watson]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> On Behalf Of Uwe Hermann
> Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 5:23 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [coreboot] [PATCH] flashrom: List supported/nonsupported boards
>
> See patch.

Tyan s2891, s2892, and s2895 are all supported without enables.  That list
seems like a hard one to keep up to date.

Thanks,
Myles

[Luc Verhaegen]

On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 07:16:53AM -0600, Myles Watson wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > On Behalf Of Uwe Hermann
> > Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 5:23 PM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Subject: [coreboot] [PATCH] flashrom: List supported/nonsupported boards
> >
> > See patch.
>
> Tyan s2891, s2892, and s2895 are all supported without enables.  That list
> seems like a hard one to keep up to date.
>
> Thanks,
> Myles

There are only a few boards that i own that require special code as 
well... For instance, most of my msi boards are just happy without 
anything special.

So yeah, it is a rather insane list to maintain inside code.

But of course, if someone is crazy enough to want the sysiphean task of 
maintaining such a list by himself, then by all means, let him do so, 
but don't expect him to keep it up for long.

Luc Verhaegen.

[Uwe Hermann]

On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 03:40:30PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > Tyan s2891, s2892, and s2895 are all supported without enables.

Thanks, updated.

I assume you tested at least one write or erase operation on all
three boards so you can be sure that there's no write-enable needed?
> That list seems like a hard one to keep up to date.

Not any harder than the list of tested chips, chipsets, etc. which we
maintain already.

Also, these two lists (known-good and known-bad boards) have been
maintained on the wiki for quite a while now already, we just moved
the "master" list into the tool, so that users can also get it
with 'flashrom -L' etc. (as we did with the list of supported chips
and chipsets).
> There are only a few boards that i own that require special code as 
> well... For instance, most of my msi boards are just happy without 
> anything special.

Please send a list of the vendor/name of those boards where you tested
write/erase with flashrom, I'll add them (or feel free to commit yourself
with a self-ack).
> But of course, if someone is crazy enough to want the sysiphean task of 
> maintaining such a list by himself, then by all means, let him do so, 
> but don't expect him to keep it up for long.

I'm here, I'll do it. It's just another list, just as the list of chip
testing reports, it can be maintained no problem.

The lists are _very_ important for users IMHO, we keep getting "is my
board supported by flashrom?" questions which this answers. Also, a user
has no simple means to find out if his board needs a write-enable (without
risking to brick the hardware in the process) the list is even more
important. It gives him either a "yes, someone has successfully tested
that writes work on this board" or "no, this board has been verified to
need special write-enables which are not (yet) implemented/reversed so
please don't use flashrom on this board).

If the user's board is in neither category, he'll probably show up in
IRC and we can help to test and put the boards in any of the categories.

Thanks, Uwe.

[Myles Watson]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Uwe Hermann [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 9:32 AM
> To: Luc Verhaegen
> Cc: Myles Watson; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [coreboot] [PATCH] flashrom: List supported/nonsupported
> boards
>
> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 03:40:30PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > > Tyan s2891, s2892, and s2895 are all supported without enables.
>
> Thanks, updated.
>
> I assume you tested at least one write or erase operation on all
> three boards so you can be sure that there's no write-enable needed?

I personally tested on s2892 and s2895, Ward has used the s2891.  In
general, all coreboot-supported boards should show up in the list.  Are
there any that are supported by coreboot but not by flashrom?
> > That list seems like a hard one to keep up to date.
>
> Not any harder than the list of tested chips, chipsets, etc. which we
> maintain already.

I'm not complaining.  Just commenting.

These entries from the wiki seem confusing to me.  Are there two different
K7M boards?

Known good (worked out of the box)
Tyan 	 S2498 (Tomcat K7M) 	 OK

Known good (with write-enable code in flashrom)
Tyan 	 Tomcat K7M 	 - 	 OK

Thanks,
Myles

[Uwe Hermann]

On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 09:46:18AM -0600, Myles Watson wrote:
> > I assume you tested at least one write or erase operation on all
> > three boards so you can be sure that there's no write-enable needed?
>
> I personally tested on s2892 and s2895, Ward has used the s2891.  In
> general, all coreboot-supported boards should show up in the list.  Are
> there any that are supported by coreboot but not by flashrom?

Yes, for example:

ASUS 	MEW-AM
ASUS 	MEW-VM
ASUS 	P3B-F
Biostar M6TBA

coreboot support and flashrom support are not necessarily related. I
have various boards (e.g. some of the above) which I can support in coreboot,
but haven't yet found the time or energy to figure out a write-enable
for flashrom (as I have other boards which work where I can program the
flash chips).
> These entries from the wiki seem confusing to me.  Are there two different
> K7M boards?
>
> Known good (worked out of the box)
> Tyan 	 S2498 (Tomcat K7M) 	 OK
>
> Known good (with write-enable code in flashrom)
> Tyan 	 Tomcat K7M 	 - 	 OK

Fixed, thanks.

Uwe.

[Myles Watson]

> > Are there any that are supported by coreboot but not by flashrom?
>
> Yes, for example:
>
> ASUS 	MEW-AM
> ASUS 	MEW-VM
> ASUS 	P3B-F
> Biostar M6TBA

Good to know.
> coreboot support and flashrom support are not necessarily related. I
> have various boards (e.g. some of the above) which I can support in
> coreboot,
> but haven't yet found the time or energy to figure out a write-enable
> for flashrom (as I have other boards which work where I can program the
> flash chips).

I figured that Coreboot support required more information (in general) than
flashrom support and thus coreboot support would be a subset.  Thanks for
the explanation.

Myles