#113: problem

[coreboot]

#113: problem
---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
   Reporter:  anonymous          |          Owner:  somebody
       Type:  defect             |         Status:  new     
   Priority:  major              |      Milestone:          
  Component:  adlo               |        Version:  v2      
   Keywords:                     |   Dependencies:          
Patchstatus:  there is no patch  |  
---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
 there is a bug

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://tracker.coreboot.org/trac/coreboot/ticket/113>
coreboot <http://www.coreboot.org/>

[coreboot]

#113: problem
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
    Reporter:  anonymous  |         Owner:  somebody         
        Type:  defect     |        Status:  new              
    Priority:  major      |     Milestone:                   
   Component:  adlo       |       Version:  v2               
  Resolution:             |      Keywords:                   
Dependencies:             |   Patchstatus:  there is no patch
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Comment(by anonymous):

 omg; why is this not tagged as spam. Here is my bugreport that IS posted
 as spam:

 'flashrom does not support a flash chip named ...', but it does

 flashrom gives me the above error which is strange; it says it doesn't
 support the chip; but it is in the list? I assume this could not be caused
 by not running `make install`?

 {{{
 # ./flashrom
 Calibrating delay loop... OK.
 No coreboot table found.
 Found chipset "Intel ICH7M", enabling flash write... OK.
 Found chip "Macronix MX25L8005" (1024 KB) at physical address 0xfff00000.
 Found chip "Macronix unknown Macronix SPI chip" (0 KB) at physical address
 0xfffff000.
 Multiple flash chips were detected: MX25L8005 unknown Macronix SPI chip
 Please specify which chip to use with the -c <chipname> option.

 # ./flashrom -f -r -c "Macronix MX25L8005"
 Calibrating delay loop... OK.
 No coreboot table found.
 Found chipset "Intel ICH7M", enabling flash write... OK.
 No EEPROM/flash device found.
 Force read (-f -r -c) requested, forcing chip probe success:
 flashrom does not support a flash chip named 'Macronix MX25L8005'.
 Run flashrom -L to view the hardware supported in this flashrom version.

 # ./flashrom -L|grep 'Macronix MX25L8005'
 Macronix MX25L8005

 }}}

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://tracker.coreboot.org/trac/coreboot/ticket/113#comment:1>
coreboot <http://www.coreboot.org/>

[coreboot]

#113: problem
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
    Reporter:  anonymous  |         Owner:  somebody         
        Type:  defect     |        Status:  new              
    Priority:  major      |     Milestone:                   
   Component:  adlo       |       Version:  v2               
  Resolution:             |      Keywords:                   
Dependencies:             |   Patchstatus:  there is no patch
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Comment(by anonymous):

 Try the attached patch.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://tracker.coreboot.org/trac/coreboot/ticket/113#comment:2>
coreboot <http://www.coreboot.org/>

#113: flashrom -c does not accept vendor+chip name, only chip name (was: problem)

[coreboot]

#113: flashrom -c does not accept vendor+chip name, only chip name
----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
    Reporter:  anonymous    |         Owner:  somebody         
        Type:  enhancement  |        Status:  new              
    Priority:  major        |     Milestone:                   
   Component:  flashrom     |       Version:  v2               
  Resolution:               |      Keywords:                   
Dependencies:               |   Patchstatus:  there is no patch
----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Changes (by hailfinger):

  * type:  defect => enhancement
  * component:  adlo => flashrom


Comment:

 Very funny. Your patch breaks flashrom for at least a dozen chips.

 The chip vendor is not part of the chip name. Simply use

 flashrom -c MX25L8005


 One could argue that flashrom -c should accept the combination of vendor
 and chip name as well, not only the chip name.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://tracker.coreboot.org/trac/coreboot/ticket/113#comment:3>
coreboot <http://www.coreboot.org/>

#113: flashrom -c does not accept vendor+chip name, only chip name

[coreboot]

#113: flashrom -c does not accept vendor+chip name, only chip name
---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
   Reporter:  anonymous          |          Owner:  somebody     
       Type:  enhancement        |         Status:  new          
   Priority:  major              |      Milestone:  flashrom v1.1
  Component:  flashrom           |        Version:  v2           
   Keywords:                     |   Dependencies:               
Patchstatus:  there is no patch  |  
---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
Changes (by stepan):

  * milestone:  => flashrom v1.1


-- 
Ticket URL: <http://tracker.coreboot.org/trac/coreboot/ticket/113#comment:4>
coreboot <http://www.coreboot.org/>

#113: flashrom -c does not accept vendor+chip name, only chip name

[coreboot]

#113: flashrom -c does not accept vendor+chip name, only chip name
---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
   Reporter:  anonymous          |          Owner:  somebody     
       Type:  enhancement        |         Status:  new          
   Priority:  major              |      Milestone:  flashrom v1.1
  Component:  flashrom           |        Version:  v2           
   Keywords:                     |   Dependencies:               
Patchstatus:  there is no patch  |  
---------------------------------+------------------------------------------

Comment(by hailfinger):

 Is this feature still wanted? If yes, how do we detect whether a user
 specified chip vendor+name or just chip name?

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://tracker.coreboot.org/trac/coreboot/ticket/113#comment:5>
coreboot <http://www.coreboot.org/>

#113: flashrom -c does not accept vendor+chip name, only chip name

[coreboot]

#113: flashrom -c does not accept vendor+chip name, only chip name
----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
    Reporter:  anonymous    |         Owner:  somebody         
        Type:  enhancement  |        Status:  closed           
    Priority:  major        |     Milestone:  flashrom v1.1    
   Component:  flashrom     |       Version:  v2               
  Resolution:  invalid      |      Keywords:                   
Dependencies:               |   Patchstatus:  there is no patch
----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Changes (by hailfinger):

  * status:  new => closed
  * resolution:  => invalid


Comment:

 I'm tempted to declare this as a simple case of RTFM. The duplicate
 detection has been fixed for months, and the rest is just a matter of
 actually reading the output from flashrom.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://tracker.coreboot.org/trac/coreboot/ticket/113#comment:6>
coreboot <http://www.coreboot.org/>