September 2024 - flashrom-gerrit

[M] Change in flashrom[main]: More adequate progress
by Sergii Dmytruk (Code Review) 14 Sep '24

14 Sep '24

Attention is currently required from: Aarya, Anastasia Klimchuk, Nikolai Artemiev, Peter Marheine. Sergii Dmytruk has posted comments on this change by Sergii Dmytruk. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84102?usp=email ) Change subject: More adequate progress ...................................................................... Patch Set 1: (7 comments) Patchset: PS1: > Sergii, thanks a lot for the patch, that's a great help. […] Sure, please go for it. I can review and … [View More]provide more details as needed, just don't have time/need to finish this properly. Commit Message: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84102/comment/7fa24368_d2e255aa?us… : PS1, Line 46: : CLI shares terminal with the rest of the code > What does it mean? I don't understand :( I just meant that flashrom can print log output at any point (like it prints `DONE something`) so CLI implementation can't assume that nothing interferes with its output. File dummyflasher.c: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84102/comment/2af2d3e3_1145c745?us… : PS1, Line 58: unsigned long long delay_ns; > This is changing to nano seconds, is it to be able to set a more fine-grained delay? […] I think insufficient range was my first guess, before I noticed `(1000000 * 8) / freq` below. If frequency of 1Hz isn't necessary in 32-bit builds, then `long int` should be enough. 64MHz wasn't supported because `(1000000 * 8) / 64000000` results in zero delay (like any frequency above 8MHz). Type of `freq` below doesn't need to change in any case. File include/flash.h: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84102/comment/74c4eb9a_2775229e?us… : PS1, Line 544: struct stage_progress { : size_t current; : size_t total; : }; > And can this go to libflashrom. […] This is not part of API, nothing in `libflashrom.h` uses this structure. https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84102/comment/8edbf977_85a786b5?us… : PS1, Line 587: struct stage_progress stage_progress[FLASHROM_PROGRESS_NR]; > Maybe this can go inside `struct flashrom_progress` ? Why do we need two structs on the same level, […] That would change API and ABI. This was added for internal use to keep track of progress, while `struct flashrom_progress` is a parameter for a user callback which can also be allocated on client side and changed at will, potentially messing with flashrom's view of things. File linux_mtd.c: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84102/comment/4caa98f3_c3707e9c?us… : PS1, Line 298: update_progress(flash, FLASHROM_PROGRESS_ERASE, u + data->erasesize, len); > Why you removed this? Should it be […] It's for erasing which I think is handled uniformly in `erasure_layout.c`. File spi.c: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84102/comment/a9799407_12dbdc0e?us… : PS1, Line 118: update_progress(flash, FLASHROM_PROGRESS_READ, start - start_address + to_read, end_address); > Why removing, should this be […] `flash->mst->spi.read` updates progress, keeping this line results in progress on reading reaching over 100%. This could be a single place to report read progress (like for erasing) and drop all similar calls in programmers, but granularity would likely be too coarse (erasing is different, there can be a command to erase the whole chip at once and you can only report it in one way: 0% -> 100%). -- To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84102?usp=email To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://review.coreboot.org/settings?usp=email Gerrit-MessageType: comment Gerrit-Project: flashrom Gerrit-Branch: main Gerrit-Change-Id: If1e40fc97f443c4f0c0501cef11cff1f3f84c051 Gerrit-Change-Number: 84102 Gerrit-PatchSet: 1 Gerrit-Owner: Sergii Dmytruk <sergii.dmytruk(a)3mdeb.com> Gerrit-Reviewer: Aarya <aarya.chaumal(a)gmail.com> Gerrit-Reviewer: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: Nikolai Artemiev <nartemiev(a)google.com> Gerrit-Reviewer: Peter Marheine <pmarheine(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply(a)coreboot.org> Gerrit-Attention: Aarya <aarya.chaumal(a)gmail.com> Gerrit-Attention: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Attention: Nikolai Artemiev <nartemiev(a)google.com> Gerrit-Attention: Peter Marheine <pmarheine(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Comment-Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2024 16:33:11 +0000 Gerrit-HasComments: Yes Gerrit-Has-Labels: No Comment-In-Reply-To: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org> [View Less]

1 0

[M] Change in flashrom[main]: More adequate progress
by Anastasia Klimchuk (Code Review) 14 Sep '24

14 Sep '24

Attention is currently required from: Aarya, Nikolai Artemiev, Peter Marheine. Anastasia Klimchuk has posted comments on this change by Sergii Dmytruk. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84102?usp=email ) Change subject: More adequate progress ...................................................................... Patch Set 1: (1 comment) Patchset: PS1: Sergii, thanks a lot for the patch, that's a great help. You said it's fine to take over, I think I will take the offer. There … [View More]

1 0

[M] Change in flashrom[main]: More adequate progress
by Anastasia Klimchuk (Code Review) 14 Sep '24

14 Sep '24

Attention is currently required from: Sergii Dmytruk. Anastasia Klimchuk has posted comments on this change by Sergii Dmytruk. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84102?usp=email ) Change subject: More adequate progress ...................................................................... Patch Set 1: (9 comments) This change is ready for review. Patchset: PS1: A comment to fix the tests Commit Message: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84102/comment/280159dd_f1975f46?… [View More]us… : PS1, Line 46: : CLI shares terminal with the rest of the code What does it mean? I don't understand :( File dediprog.c: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84102/comment/d434306c_36c7d7c6?us… : PS1, Line 596: 256 wow thanks for updating the comment! :) I will extract this into a separate commit File dummyflasher.c: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84102/comment/62878381_3cfaaaa5?us… : PS1, Line 58: unsigned long long delay_ns; This is changing to nano seconds, is it to be able to set a more fine-grained delay? In the example script, you use `freq=64mhz`, but I think 64mhz would be possible to do even before? File en29lv640b.c: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84102/comment/79d1f9ed_c73759b3?us… : PS1, Line 29: /* chunksize is 2 */ This can also be a separate commit which updates the comment only. File include/flash.h: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84102/comment/7b737178_4be94ba0?us… : PS1, Line 544: struct stage_progress { : size_t current; : size_t total; : }; And can this go to libflashrom.h , where the struct flashrom_progress is already? https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84102/comment/9ce51976_d1b034e8?us… : PS1, Line 587: struct stage_progress stage_progress[FLASHROM_PROGRESS_NR]; Maybe this can go inside `struct flashrom_progress` ? Why do we need two structs on the same level, and they both are about progress. If they have to go together, they better be inside the same struct. File linux_mtd.c: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84102/comment/135d110c_3f5a4bf3?us… : PS1, Line 298: update_progress(flash, FLASHROM_PROGRESS_ERASE, u + data->erasesize, len); Why you removed this? Should it be > update_progress(flash, FLASHROM_PROGRESS_ERASE, data->erasesize); File spi.c: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84102/comment/b5251ee8_c1d8a94f?us… : PS1, Line 118: update_progress(flash, FLASHROM_PROGRESS_READ, start - start_address + to_read, end_address); Why removing, should this be > update_progress(flash, FLASHROM_PROGRESS_READ, to_read); -- To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84102?usp=email To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://review.coreboot.org/settings?usp=email Gerrit-MessageType: comment Gerrit-Project: flashrom Gerrit-Branch: main Gerrit-Change-Id: If1e40fc97f443c4f0c0501cef11cff1f3f84c051 Gerrit-Change-Number: 84102 Gerrit-PatchSet: 1 Gerrit-Owner: Sergii Dmytruk <sergii.dmytruk(a)3mdeb.com> Gerrit-Reviewer: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply(a)coreboot.org> Gerrit-Attention: Sergii Dmytruk <sergii.dmytruk(a)3mdeb.com> Gerrit-Comment-Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2024 13:41:21 +0000 Gerrit-HasComments: Yes Gerrit-Has-Labels: No [View Less]

1 0

[S] Change in flashrom[main]: ichspi: Restore Sector erase opcode after send command
by Anastasia Klimchuk (Code Review) 13 Sep '24

13 Sep '24

Attention is currently required from: Bill XIE, Nikolai Artemiev. Anastasia Klimchuk has posted comments on this change by Bill XIE. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84253?usp=email ) Change subject: ichspi: Restore Sector erase opcode after send command ...................................................................... Patch Set 1: (3 comments) Patchset: PS1: Bill, thank you so much for the patch! Especially, that you provided all the details of your debugging, and logs … [View More]in the ticket, it is so much useful! I think you found a real issue. I spent some time looking through everything, and I want to find the right solution (and add some more people to the patch and discuss). I understand that you made the patch and it unblocks your work, so there is no urgency from your side? It might be another week or two to discuss. Also, I added comments, but they are not necessarily for you (hope this doesn't sound too odd :) ). File ichspi.c: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84253/comment/33d3cb94_84ad1e1e?us… : PS1, Line 402: static OPCODE POSSIBLE_OPCODES[] = { What is the meaning of this array ? It is called POSSIBLE_OPCODES , but for example in the logs of the linked bug, during probing, opcodes are reprogrammed to 0x83, 0x5A, 0x15, 0xAB - and none of these is in the POSSIBLE_OPCODES . https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84253/comment/d10bdf75_2b8c52ab?us… : PS1, Line 664: int oppos = 2; // use original JEDEC_BE_D8 offset I have questions in my head 1) Why hardcoded offset 2 is chosen to reprogram? I understand that something has to be reprogrammed. But why specifically index 2 was chosen? There is "reprogramming on the fly", but there is no "restore reprogramming", so probably the idea was that if opcode is discovered missing, it would be reprogrammed back. However, I think erase opcodes are not good candidates for reprogramming, because if one of them is missing everything still works, erase works with what's remaining available opcodes. Which breaks the idea of erase optimisations that we have now (but original code goes back to 2010, maybe it wasn't relevant at that time). If I were to pick one of the opcodes in default configuration, to be used for reprogramming, I would pick offset 4, JEDEC_REMS "Read Electronic Manufacturer Signature". I don't think it's used often, also if it's missing it will be discovered missing and reprogrammed back. Can we change offset 2 to 4 ? 2) This line was written in Oct 2010 (https://github.com/flashrom/flashrom/commit/738e252112271f63c8ad4c9a135cfe1…) , but since then the offset of JEDEC_BE_D8 has changed, see patch https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/34689 (Aug 2019) After this patch , offset 2 is no longer JEDEC_BE_D8, but now it is JEDEC_SE. However, reprogram_opcode_on_the_fly still uses hard-coded offset 2 for re-programming. Is this fine? 3) And of course I am also wondering, how is that no one noticed this before? Is this perhaps most often the whole chip is erased? -- To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84253?usp=email To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://review.coreboot.org/settings?usp=email Gerrit-MessageType: comment Gerrit-Project: flashrom Gerrit-Branch: main Gerrit-Change-Id: I3fc831fc072e2af9265835cb2f71bf8c222c6a64 Gerrit-Change-Number: 84253 Gerrit-PatchSet: 1 Gerrit-Owner: Bill XIE <persmule(a)hardenedlinux.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: Nikolai Artemiev <nartemiev(a)google.com> Gerrit-Reviewer: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply(a)coreboot.org> Gerrit-Attention: Bill XIE <persmule(a)hardenedlinux.org> Gerrit-Attention: Nikolai Artemiev <nartemiev(a)google.com> Gerrit-Comment-Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 13:55:18 +0000 Gerrit-HasComments: Yes Gerrit-Has-Labels: No [View Less]

1 0

[M] Change in flashrom[main]: Fix FEATURE_NO_ERASE chips and add test for them
by Peter Marheine (Code Review) 12 Sep '24

12 Sep '24

Attention is currently required from: Anastasia Klimchuk, Miklós Márton. Peter Marheine has posted comments on this change by Anastasia Klimchuk. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84203?usp=email ) Change subject: Fix FEATURE_NO_ERASE chips and add test for them ...................................................................... Patch Set 6: Code-Review+2 -- To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84203?usp=email To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail … [View More]

1 0

[M] Change in flashrom[main]: Fix FEATURE_NO_ERASE chips and add test for them
by Anastasia Klimchuk (Code Review) 12 Sep '24

12 Sep '24

Attention is currently required from: Miklós Márton, Peter Marheine. Anastasia Klimchuk has posted comments on this change by Anastasia Klimchuk. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84203?usp=email ) Change subject: Fix FEATURE_NO_ERASE chips and add test for them ...................................................................... Patch Set 6: (1 comment) File include/flash.h: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84203/comment/8a6060f0_9c7715a2?us… : PS5, Line 152: * … [View More]

1 0

[M] Change in flashrom[main]: Fix FEATURE_NO_ERASE chips and add test for them
by Anastasia Klimchuk (Code Review) 12 Sep '24

12 Sep '24

Attention is currently required from: Anastasia Klimchuk, Miklós Márton. Hello Miklós Márton, Peter Marheine, build bot (Jenkins), I'd like you to reexamine a change. Please visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84203?usp=email to look at the new patch set (#6). The following approvals got outdated and were removed: Verified+1 by build bot (Jenkins) Change subject: Fix FEATURE_NO_ERASE chips and add test for them ..............................................................… [View More]

1 0

[M] Change in flashrom[main]: Fix FEATURE_NO_ERASE chips and add test for them
by Peter Marheine (Code Review) 12 Sep '24

12 Sep '24

Attention is currently required from: Anastasia Klimchuk, Miklós Márton. Peter Marheine has posted comments on this change by Anastasia Klimchuk. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84203?usp=email ) Change subject: Fix FEATURE_NO_ERASE chips and add test for them ...................................................................... Patch Set 5: (1 comment) File include/flash.h: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84203/comment/3e988205_64795c4a?us… : PS5, Line 152: * … [View More]

1 0

[M] Change in flashrom[main]: Fix FEATURE_NO_ERASE chips and add test for them
by Anastasia Klimchuk (Code Review) 12 Sep '24

12 Sep '24

Attention is currently required from: Miklós Márton, Peter Marheine. Anastasia Klimchuk has posted comments on this change by Anastasia Klimchuk. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84203?usp=email ) Change subject: Fix FEATURE_NO_ERASE chips and add test for them ...................................................................... Patch Set 5: (2 comments) File flashrom.c: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84203/comment/7908cf76_19f413eb?us… : PS3, Line 487: for (int i … [View More]

1 0

[M] Change in flashrom[main]: Fix FEATURE_NO_ERASE chips and add test for them
by Anastasia Klimchuk (Code Review) 12 Sep '24

12 Sep '24

Attention is currently required from: Anastasia Klimchuk, Miklós Márton. Hello Miklós Márton, Peter Marheine, build bot (Jenkins), I'd like you to reexamine a change. Please visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84203?usp=email to look at the new patch set (#5). The following approvals got outdated and were removed: Verified+1 by build bot (Jenkins) Change subject: Fix FEATURE_NO_ERASE chips and add test for them ..............................................................… [View More]

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

flashrom-gerrit September 2024