- flashrom-gerrit - mail.coreboot.org

[L] Change in flashrom[main]: cli_classic: Add rpmc command support
by Matti Finder (Code Review) 24 Oct '24

24 Oct '24

Attention is currently required from: Anastasia Klimchuk, Peter Marheine. Matti Finder has posted comments on this change by Matti Finder. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84840?usp=email ) Change subject: cli_classic: Add rpmc command support ...................................................................... Patch Set 2: (1 comment) File meson.build: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84840/comment/f3d08866_98b1b810?us… : PS1, Line 179: add_project_arguments('-DCONFIG_RPMC_ENABLED=1', language : 'c') > rpmc should be added as an option (in `meson_options. […] Done -- To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84840?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: I36c823bbee65f256eb6edabe6f058321c9a0cfa1 Gerrit-Change-Number: 84840 Gerrit-PatchSet: 2 Gerrit-Owner: Matti Finder <matti.finder(a)gmail.com> Gerrit-Reviewer: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: Peter Marheine <pmarheine(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply(a)coreboot.org> Gerrit-Attention: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Attention: Peter Marheine <pmarheine(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Comment-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 17:01:21 +0000 Gerrit-HasComments: Yes Gerrit-Has-Labels: No Comment-In-Reply-To: Peter Marheine <pmarheine(a)chromium.org>

1 0

[L] Change in flashrom[main]: cli_classic: Add rpmc command support
by Matti Finder (Code Review) 24 Oct '24

24 Oct '24

Attention is currently required from: Anastasia Klimchuk, Matti Finder. Hello Anastasia Klimchuk, Peter Marheine, build bot (Jenkins), I'd like you to reexamine a change. Please visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84840?usp=email to look at the new patch set (#2). The following approvals got outdated and were removed: Verified+1 by build bot (Jenkins) Change subject: cli_classic: Add rpmc command support ...................................................................... cli_classic: Add rpmc command support Added optional support for all the commands specified in JESD260. Added a new optional dependency to openssls libcrypto. Added parsing for the rpmc parameter sfdp table. Added necessary rpmc parameter information to flashchips struct and the flash hardening feature to enable rpmc commands. Tested on the Winbond W25R128JV as a 'SFDP-capable chip'. This patch was done to add rpmc command support to flashrom. This enables users to write root keys to their flash chips while they flash data on the chip. This might become usefull in the future as rpmc support is extended in coreboot. Also adds usefull debug tools to flashrom, which might be usefull in implementing coreboots rpmc support. Change-Id: I36c823bbee65f256eb6edabe6f058321c9a0cfa1 Signed-off-by: Matti Finder <matti.finder(a)gmail.com> --- M cli_classic.c M include/flash.h A include/rpmc.h M meson.build M meson_options.txt A rpmc.c M sfdp.c 7 files changed, 798 insertions(+), 83 deletions(-) git pull ssh://review.coreboot.org:29418/flashrom refs/changes/40/84840/2 -- To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84840?usp=email To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://review.coreboot.org/settings?usp=email Gerrit-MessageType: newpatchset Gerrit-Project: flashrom Gerrit-Branch: main Gerrit-Change-Id: I36c823bbee65f256eb6edabe6f058321c9a0cfa1 Gerrit-Change-Number: 84840 Gerrit-PatchSet: 2 Gerrit-Owner: Matti Finder <matti.finder(a)gmail.com> Gerrit-Reviewer: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: Peter Marheine <pmarheine(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply(a)coreboot.org> Gerrit-Attention: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Attention: Matti Finder <matti.finder(a)gmail.com>

1 0

[XS] Change in flashrom[main]: linux_mtd: fix build with clang >= 19
by Arnaud Ferraris (Code Review) 24 Oct '24

24 Oct '24

Arnaud Ferraris has uploaded this change for review. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84856?usp=email ) Change subject: linux_mtd: fix build with clang >= 19 ...................................................................... linux_mtd: fix build with clang >= 19 Starting with version 19, clang issues a warning when using `strlen()` for initializing a static array's size. This causes the build to fail as the project also sets `-Werror`. This is fixed by using `sizeof()` instead, which is guaranteed to be evaluated at compilation time and therefore not triggering the problematic warning. Change-Id: If470a65702e9ae08e4303123a0014e53a1fee56e Signed-off-by: Arnaud Ferraris <arnaud.ferraris(a)collabora.com> --- M linux_mtd.c 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) git pull ssh://review.coreboot.org:29418/flashrom refs/changes/56/84856/1 diff --git a/linux_mtd.c b/linux_mtd.c index eea0cf2..8180a35 100644 --- a/linux_mtd.c +++ b/linux_mtd.c @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ int i; size_t bytes_read; FILE *fp; - char path[strlen(LINUX_MTD_SYSFS_ROOT) + 32]; + char path[sizeof(LINUX_MTD_SYSFS_ROOT) + 32]; snprintf(path, sizeof(path), "%s/%s", sysfs_path, filename); -- To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84856?usp=email To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://review.coreboot.org/settings?usp=email Gerrit-MessageType: newchange Gerrit-Project: flashrom Gerrit-Branch: main Gerrit-Change-Id: If470a65702e9ae08e4303123a0014e53a1fee56e Gerrit-Change-Number: 84856 Gerrit-PatchSet: 1 Gerrit-Owner: Arnaud Ferraris

1 0

[S] Change in flashrom[main]: flashchips: add GD25F128F
by Anastasia Klimchuk (Code Review) 24 Oct '24

24 Oct '24

Attention is currently required from: Nikolai Artemiev, Stefan Reinauer, Victor Lim. Anastasia Klimchuk has posted comments on this change by Victor Lim. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84827?usp=email ) Change subject: flashchips: add GD25F128F ...................................................................... Patch Set 1: (1 comment) Commit Message: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84827/comment/b001940b_bcb02b63?us… : PS1, Line 12: Will send datasheet via email Is it possible that you will also include Nikolai in the email when you send the datasheet? Thank you! -- To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84827?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: I14c0905f50e92492287d50f8377790b997c4acfe Gerrit-Change-Number: 84827 Gerrit-PatchSet: 1 Gerrit-Owner: Victor Lim <vlim(a)gigadevice.com> Gerrit-Reviewer: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: Nikolai Artemiev <nartemiev(a)google.com> Gerrit-Reviewer: Stefan Reinauer <stefan.reinauer(a)coreboot.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply(a)coreboot.org> Gerrit-Attention: Victor Lim <vlim(a)gigadevice.com> Gerrit-Attention: Stefan Reinauer <stefan.reinauer(a)coreboot.org> Gerrit-Attention: Nikolai Artemiev <nartemiev(a)google.com> Gerrit-Comment-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 09:54:50 +0000 Gerrit-HasComments: Yes Gerrit-Has-Labels: No

1 0

[S] Change in flashrom[main]: erasure_layout: Add an option to sacrifice unchanged blocks for speed
by Bill XIE (Code Review) 24 Oct '24

24 Oct '24

Attention is currently required from: Aarya, Anastasia Klimchuk. Bill XIE has posted comments on this change by Bill XIE. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84721?usp=email ) Change subject: erasure_layout: Add an option to sacrifice unchanged blocks for speed ...................................................................... Patch Set 4: (2 comments) Patchset: PS3: > Sorry for some delay, I am getting back to this. […] Okay. File cli_classic.c: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84721/comment/a0090eab_8f259bfc?us… : PS3, Line 127: harder > Maybe "faster" instead of "harder"? No problem. Done -- To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84721?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: I154e8a713f626c37dbbe118db700055b96d24803 Gerrit-Change-Number: 84721 Gerrit-PatchSet: 4 Gerrit-Owner: Bill XIE <persmule(a)hardenedlinux.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: Aarya <aarya.chaumal(a)gmail.com> Gerrit-Reviewer: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(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-Comment-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 06:34:50 +0000 Gerrit-HasComments: Yes Gerrit-Has-Labels: No Comment-In-Reply-To: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org>

1 0

[S] Change in flashrom[main]: erasure_layout: Add an option to sacrifice unchanged blocks for speed
by Bill XIE (Code Review) 24 Oct '24

24 Oct '24

Attention is currently required from: Aarya, Bill XIE. Hello Aarya, Anastasia Klimchuk, build bot (Jenkins), I'd like you to reexamine a change. Please visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84721?usp=email to look at the new patch set (#4). The following approvals got outdated and were removed: Verified+1 by build bot (Jenkins) Change subject: erasure_layout: Add an option to sacrifice unchanged blocks for speed ...................................................................... erasure_layout: Add an option to sacrifice unchanged blocks for speed Someone may prefer to sacrifice sub-blocks needless to change within a larger erase block for programming speed. These people who are okay to fry their chip sooner can set this option. If the percentage of sub-blocks needless to change within a larger erase block is lower than the given value, the whole larger erase block will be erased. Change-Id: I154e8a713f626c37dbbe118db700055b96d24803 Signed-off-by: persmule <persmule(a)hardenedlinux.org> --- M cli_classic.c M erasure_layout.c M include/flash.h 3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) git pull ssh://review.coreboot.org:29418/flashrom refs/changes/21/84721/4 -- To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84721?usp=email To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://review.coreboot.org/settings?usp=email Gerrit-MessageType: newpatchset Gerrit-Project: flashrom Gerrit-Branch: main Gerrit-Change-Id: I154e8a713f626c37dbbe118db700055b96d24803 Gerrit-Change-Number: 84721 Gerrit-PatchSet: 4 Gerrit-Owner: Bill XIE <persmule(a)hardenedlinux.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: Aarya <aarya.chaumal(a)gmail.com> Gerrit-Reviewer: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply(a)coreboot.org> Gerrit-Attention: Bill XIE <persmule(a)hardenedlinux.org> Gerrit-Attention: Aarya <aarya.chaumal(a)gmail.com>

1 0

[S] Change in flashrom[main]: erasure_layout: Add an option to sacrifice unchanged blocks for speed
by Anastasia Klimchuk (Code Review) 24 Oct '24

24 Oct '24

Attention is currently required from: Aarya, Bill XIE. Anastasia Klimchuk has posted comments on this change by Bill XIE. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84721?usp=email ) Change subject: erasure_layout: Add an option to sacrifice unchanged blocks for speed ...................................................................... Patch Set 3: (3 comments) Patchset: PS3: Sorry for some delay, I am getting back to this. I want to add a test into this patch, because now it's possible to add such test (after CB:84783). If it goes by the plan, I will upload new patchset with test, hope it's fine. File cli_classic.c: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84721/comment/130b3202_9beea412?us… : PS3, Line 124: " --sacrifice-ratio <ratio> The percentage of overall sub-blocks needless to\n" : " change within a larger erase block to be sacrificed\n" : " for programming speed, default 0, max 100\n" I was thinking, maybe to change this description a bit, to make it more clear: but I haven't composed anything in my head yet :) just keep thinking on the background. If I don't come up with anything, then that will be it. In any case, definitely will keep the DANGEROUS! warning. https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84721/comment/ad5825c2_84a534a3?us… : PS3, Line 127: harder Maybe "faster" instead of "harder"? -- To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84721?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: I154e8a713f626c37dbbe118db700055b96d24803 Gerrit-Change-Number: 84721 Gerrit-PatchSet: 3 Gerrit-Owner: Bill XIE <persmule(a)hardenedlinux.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: Aarya <aarya.chaumal(a)gmail.com> Gerrit-Reviewer: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply(a)coreboot.org> Gerrit-Attention: Bill XIE <persmule(a)hardenedlinux.org> Gerrit-Attention: Aarya <aarya.chaumal(a)gmail.com> Gerrit-Comment-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 01:57:32 +0000 Gerrit-HasComments: Yes Gerrit-Has-Labels: No

1 0

[S] Change in flashrom[main]: erase/write: Deselect all smaller blocks when large block is selected
by Anastasia Klimchuk (Code Review) 24 Oct '24

24 Oct '24

Anastasia Klimchuk has submitted this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84686?usp=email ) ( 3 is the latest approved patch-set. No files were changed between the latest approved patch-set and the submitted one. )Change subject: erase/write: Deselect all smaller blocks when large block is selected ...................................................................... erase/write: Deselect all smaller blocks when large block is selected Previously the logic which selected large block did deselect of smaller blocks, but only one level below. So some even smaller blocks could still remain selected, and this would result in duplicate erase. This patch deselects all smaller blocks of all levels below, down to the smallest size. If the area is covered by one large block, no other smaller blocks inside are needed. Change-Id: Icfc18d5c090b1dcb92ab157e2c139be71af59300 Spotted-by: persmule <persmule(a)hardenedlinux.org> Signed-off-by: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)flashrom.org> Co-authored-by: persmule <persmule(a)hardenedlinux.org> Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84686 Reviewed-by: Peter Marheine <pmarheine(a)chromium.org> Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply(a)coreboot.org> --- M erasure_layout.c 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) Approvals: Peter Marheine: Looks good to me, approved build bot (Jenkins): Verified diff --git a/erasure_layout.c b/erasure_layout.c index 56841ab..7f3bb46 100644 --- a/erasure_layout.c +++ b/erasure_layout.c @@ -189,6 +189,27 @@ } } +/* Deselect all the blocks from index_to_deselect and down to the smallest. */ +static void deselect_erase_functions(const struct erase_layout *layout, size_t index_to_deselect, + int sub_block_start, const int sub_block_end) +{ + for (int j = sub_block_start; j <= sub_block_end; j++) + layout[index_to_deselect].layout_list[j].selected = false; + + int block_start_to_deselect = + layout[index_to_deselect].layout_list[sub_block_start].first_sub_block_index; + int block_end_to_deselect = + layout[index_to_deselect].layout_list[sub_block_end].last_sub_block_index; + + if (index_to_deselect) + deselect_erase_functions(layout, + index_to_deselect - 1, + block_start_to_deselect, + block_end_to_deselect); + else + return; // index_to_deselect has already reached 0, the smallest size of block. we are done. +} + /* * @brief Function to select the list of sectors that need erasing * @@ -229,9 +250,17 @@ const int total_blocks = sub_block_end - sub_block_start + 1; if (count == total_blocks) { + /* We are selecting one large block instead, so send opcode once + * instead of sending many smaller ones. + */ if (ll->start_addr >= rstart && ll->end_addr <= rend) { - for (int j = sub_block_start; j <= sub_block_end; j++) - layout[findex - 1].layout_list[j].selected = false; + /* Deselect all smaller blocks covering the same region. */ + deselect_erase_functions(layout, + findex - 1, + sub_block_start, + sub_block_end); + + /* Select large block. */ ll->selected = true; } } -- To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84686?usp=email To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://review.coreboot.org/settings?usp=email Gerrit-MessageType: merged Gerrit-Project: flashrom Gerrit-Branch: main Gerrit-Change-Id: Icfc18d5c090b1dcb92ab157e2c139be71af59300 Gerrit-Change-Number: 84686 Gerrit-PatchSet: 5 Gerrit-Owner: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: Aarya <aarya.chaumal(a)gmail.com> Gerrit-Reviewer: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: Bill XIE <persmule(a)hardenedlinux.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: Peter Marheine <pmarheine(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply(a)coreboot.org>

1 0

[M] Change in flashrom[main]: tests: Add assert for eraseblocks order of invocations for write op
by Anastasia Klimchuk (Code Review) 24 Oct '24

24 Oct '24

Anastasia Klimchuk has submitted this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84783?usp=email ) Change subject: tests: Add assert for eraseblocks order of invocations for write op ...................................................................... tests: Add assert for eraseblocks order of invocations for write op Change-Id: I558fded2b9f876e33ca92dea324d90ef73f6a2be Signed-off-by: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)flashrom.org> Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84783 Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply(a)coreboot.org> Reviewed-by: Peter Marheine <pmarheine(a)chromium.org> --- M tests/erase_func_algo.c 1 file changed, 187 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) Approvals: build bot (Jenkins): Verified Peter Marheine: Looks good to me, approved diff --git a/tests/erase_func_algo.c b/tests/erase_func_algo.c index d947eb9..cec4879 100644 --- a/tests/erase_func_algo.c +++ b/tests/erase_func_algo.c @@ -52,6 +52,8 @@ uint8_t written_protected_buf[MOCK_CHIP_SIZE]; /* Expected content after write with protected region. */ struct erase_invoke eraseblocks_expected[MOCK_CHIP_SIZE]; /* Expected order of eraseblocks invocations. */ unsigned int eraseblocks_expected_ind; /* Expected number of eraseblocks invocations. */ + struct erase_invoke write_eraseblocks_expected[MOCK_CHIP_SIZE]; /* Expected order of eraseblocks invocations. */ + unsigned int write_eraseblocks_expected_ind; /* Expected number of eraseblocks invocations. */ char erase_test_name[40]; /* Test case display name for testing erase operation. */ char write_test_name[40]; /* Test case display name for testing write operation. */ }; @@ -212,6 +214,29 @@ }, }; +static struct flashchip chip_1_4_16 = { + .vendor = "aklm", + /* See comment on previous chip. */ + .total_size = 1, + .tested = TEST_OK_PREW, + .gran = WRITE_GRAN_1BYTE, + .read = TEST_READ_INJECTOR, + .write = TEST_WRITE_INJECTOR, + .block_erasers = + { + { + .eraseblocks = { {1, MIN_REAL_CHIP_SIZE} }, + .block_erase = TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1, + }, { + .eraseblocks = { {4, MIN_REAL_CHIP_SIZE / 4} }, + .block_erase = TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_3, + }, { + .eraseblocks = { {16, MIN_REAL_CHIP_SIZE / 16} }, + .block_erase = TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_5, + } + }, +}; + #define BLOCK_ERASE_FUNC(n) \ static int block_erase_chip_ ## n (struct flashctx *flash, unsigned int blockaddr, unsigned int blocklen) { \ return block_erase_chip_tagged(flash, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_ ## n, blockaddr, blocklen); \ @@ -341,6 +366,8 @@ 0x19, 0x1a, 0x1b, 0x1c, 0x1d, 0x1e, 0x1f}, .eraseblocks_expected = {{0x0, 0x10, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_5}}, .eraseblocks_expected_ind = 1, + .write_eraseblocks_expected = {{0x0, 0x10, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_5}}, + .write_eraseblocks_expected_ind = 1, .erase_test_name = "Erase test case #0", .write_test_name = "Write test case #0", }, { @@ -354,7 +381,7 @@ .chip = &chip_1_2_4_8_16, .regions = {{0, MOCK_CHIP_SIZE/2 - 1, "part1"}, {MOCK_CHIP_SIZE/2, MIN_REAL_CHIP_SIZE - 1, "part2"}}, .initial_buf = {0xf0, 0xf1, 0xf2, 0xf3, 0xf4, 0xf5, 0xf6, 0xf7, - 0xf8, 0xf9, 0xfa, 0xfb, 0xfc, 0xfd, 0xfe, 0xff}, + 0xf8, 0xf9, 0xfa, 0xfb, 0xfc, 0xfd, 0xfe, 0xf1}, .erased_buf = {ERASE_VALUE, ERASE_VALUE, ERASE_VALUE, ERASE_VALUE, ERASE_VALUE, ERASE_VALUE, ERASE_VALUE, ERASE_VALUE, ERASE_VALUE, ERASE_VALUE, ERASE_VALUE, ERASE_VALUE, @@ -363,6 +390,10 @@ 0x29, 0x2a, 0x2b, 0x2c, 0x2d, 0x2e, 0x2f}, .eraseblocks_expected = {{0x8, 0x8, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_4}, {0x0, 0x8, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_4}}, .eraseblocks_expected_ind = 2, + .write_eraseblocks_expected = {{0x9, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0xa, 0x2, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_2}, + {0xc, 0x4, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_3}}, + .write_eraseblocks_expected_ind = 3, .erase_test_name = "Erase test case #1", .write_test_name = "Write test case #1", }, { @@ -391,6 +422,11 @@ {0x0, 0x8, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_4} }, .eraseblocks_expected_ind = 5, + .write_eraseblocks_expected = { + {0x6, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x8, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1} + }, + .write_eraseblocks_expected_ind = 2, .erase_test_name = "Erase test case #2", .write_test_name = "Write test case #2", }, { @@ -413,6 +449,8 @@ 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff}, .eraseblocks_expected = {{0x0, 0x10, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_5}}, .eraseblocks_expected_ind = 1, + .write_eraseblocks_expected = {{0x4, 0x4, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_3}}, + .write_eraseblocks_expected_ind = 1, .erase_test_name = "Erase test case #3", .write_test_name = "Write test case #3", }, { @@ -435,6 +473,8 @@ 0xa1, 0xa2, 0xa3, 0xa4, 0xa5, 0xa6, 0xa7, 0xa8}, .eraseblocks_expected = {{0x0, 0x10, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_5}}, .eraseblocks_expected_ind = 1, + .write_eraseblocks_expected = {{0x0, 0x4, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_3}, {0x8, 0x8, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_4}}, + .write_eraseblocks_expected_ind = 2, .erase_test_name = "Erase test case #4", .write_test_name = "Write test case #4", }, { @@ -457,6 +497,11 @@ 0xa1, 0xa2, 0xa3, 0xa4, 0xa5, 0xa6, 0xa7, 0xa8}, .eraseblocks_expected = {{0x0, 0x10, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_5}}, .eraseblocks_expected_ind = 1, + .write_eraseblocks_expected = {{0x6, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x4, 0x2, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_2}, + {0x0, 0x4, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_3}, + {0x8, 0x8, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_4}}, + .write_eraseblocks_expected_ind = 4, .erase_test_name = "Erase test case #5", .write_test_name = "Write test case #5", }, { @@ -479,6 +524,8 @@ 0xa1, 0xa2, 0xa3, 0xa4, 0xa5, 0xa6, 0xa7, 0xa8}, .eraseblocks_expected = {{0x0, 0x10, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_5}}, .eraseblocks_expected_ind = 1, + .write_eraseblocks_expected = {{0x7, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}}, + .write_eraseblocks_expected_ind = 1, .erase_test_name = "Erase test case #6", .write_test_name = "Write test case #6", }, { @@ -510,6 +557,17 @@ {0x0, 0x2, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_2} }, .eraseblocks_expected_ind = 8, + .write_eraseblocks_expected = { + {0xf, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0xe, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0xc, 0x2, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_2}, + {0x8, 0x4, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_3}, + {0x3, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x4, 0x4, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_3}, + {0x2, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x0, 0x2, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_2} + }, + .write_eraseblocks_expected_ind = 8, .erase_test_name = "Erase test case #7", .write_test_name = "Write test case #7", }, { @@ -532,6 +590,8 @@ 0x18, 0x19, 0x1a, 0x1b, 0x1c, 0x1d, 0x1e, 0x1f}, .eraseblocks_expected = {{0x0, 0x10, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_5}}, .eraseblocks_expected_ind = 1, + .write_eraseblocks_expected = {{0x0, 0x10, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_5}}, + .write_eraseblocks_expected_ind = 1, .erase_test_name = "Erase test case #8", .write_test_name = "Write test case #8", }, { @@ -546,7 +606,7 @@ .regions = {{0, MOCK_CHIP_SIZE/2 - 1, "part1"}, {MOCK_CHIP_SIZE/2, MOCK_CHIP_SIZE - 1, "part2"}, {MOCK_CHIP_SIZE, MIN_REAL_CHIP_SIZE - 1, "longtail"}}, .initial_buf = {0xf0, 0xf1, 0xf2, 0xf3, 0xf4, 0xf5, 0xf6, 0xf7, - 0xf8, 0xf9, 0xfa, 0xfb, 0xfc, 0xfd, 0xfe, 0xff}, + 0xf8, 0xf9, 0xfa, 0xfb, 0xfc, 0xfd, 0xfe, 0xf1}, .erased_buf = {ERASE_VALUE, ERASE_VALUE, ERASE_VALUE, ERASE_VALUE, ERASE_VALUE, ERASE_VALUE, ERASE_VALUE, ERASE_VALUE, ERASE_VALUE, ERASE_VALUE, ERASE_VALUE, ERASE_VALUE, @@ -555,6 +615,14 @@ 0xf8, 0x29, 0x2a, 0x2b, 0x2c, 0x2d, 0x2e, 0x2f}, .eraseblocks_expected = {{0x8, 0x8, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_4}, {0x0, 0x8, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_4}}, .eraseblocks_expected_ind = 2, + .write_eraseblocks_expected = {{0x9, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0xa, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0xb, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0xc, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0xd, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0xe, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0xf, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}}, + .write_eraseblocks_expected_ind = 7, .erase_test_name = "Erase test case #9", .write_test_name = "Write test case #9", }, { @@ -587,6 +655,11 @@ {0x0, 0x8, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_4} }, .eraseblocks_expected_ind = 9, + .write_eraseblocks_expected = { + {0x6, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x8, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1} + }, + .write_eraseblocks_expected_ind = 2, .erase_test_name = "Erase test case #10", .write_test_name = "Write test case #10", }, { @@ -609,6 +682,11 @@ 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff}, .eraseblocks_expected = {{0x0, 0x10, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_5}}, .eraseblocks_expected_ind = 1, + .write_eraseblocks_expected = {{0x4, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x5, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x6, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x7, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}}, + .write_eraseblocks_expected_ind = 4, .erase_test_name = "Erase test case #11", .write_test_name = "Write test case #11", }, { @@ -631,6 +709,12 @@ 0xa1, 0xa2, 0xa3, 0xa4, 0xa5, 0xa6, 0xa7, 0xa8}, .eraseblocks_expected = {{0x0, 0x10, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_5}}, .eraseblocks_expected_ind = 1, + .write_eraseblocks_expected = {{0x0, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x1, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x2, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x3, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x8, 0x8, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_4}}, + .write_eraseblocks_expected_ind = 5, .erase_test_name = "Erase test case #12", .write_test_name = "Write test case #12", }, { @@ -653,6 +737,15 @@ 0xa1, 0xa2, 0xa3, 0xa4, 0xa5, 0xa6, 0xa7, 0xa8}, .eraseblocks_expected = {{0x0, 0x10, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_5}}, .eraseblocks_expected_ind = 1, + .write_eraseblocks_expected = {{0x0, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x1, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x2, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x3, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x4, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x5, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x6, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x8, 0x8, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_4}}, + .write_eraseblocks_expected_ind = 8, .erase_test_name = "Erase test case #13", .write_test_name = "Write test case #13", }, { @@ -675,6 +768,8 @@ 0xa1, 0xa2, 0xa3, 0xa4, 0xa5, 0xa6, 0xa7, 0xa8}, .eraseblocks_expected = {{0x0, 0x10, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_5}}, .eraseblocks_expected_ind = 1, + .write_eraseblocks_expected = {{0x7, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}}, + .write_eraseblocks_expected_ind = 1, .erase_test_name = "Erase test case #14", .write_test_name = "Write test case #14", }, { @@ -715,6 +810,25 @@ {0x2, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, }, .eraseblocks_expected_ind = 16, + .write_eraseblocks_expected = { + {0xf, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x8, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x9, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0xa, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0xb, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0xc, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0xd, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0xe, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x3, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x4, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x5, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x6, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x7, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x0, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x1, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x2, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + }, + .write_eraseblocks_expected_ind = 16, .erase_test_name = "Erase test case #15", .write_test_name = "Write test case #15", }, { @@ -743,6 +857,13 @@ {0x0, 0x8, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_4}, }, .eraseblocks_expected_ind = 4, + .write_eraseblocks_expected = { + {0x8, 0x8, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_4}, + {0x0, 0x10, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_5}, + {0x0, 0x8, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_4}, + {0x0, 0x8, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_4}, + }, + .write_eraseblocks_expected_ind = 4, .erase_test_name = "Erase test case #16", .write_test_name = "Write test case #16", }, { @@ -765,6 +886,8 @@ 0x16, 0x16, 0x16, 0x16, 0x16, 0x16, 0x16, 0x16}, .eraseblocks_expected = {{0x0, 0x10, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_5}, {0x0, 0x8, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_4}}, .eraseblocks_expected_ind = 2, + .write_eraseblocks_expected = {{0x0, 0x10, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_5}, {0x0, 0x8, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_4}}, + .write_eraseblocks_expected_ind = 2, .erase_test_name = "Erase test case #17", .write_test_name = "Write test case #17", }, { @@ -787,6 +910,8 @@ 0x14, 0x16, 0x16, 0x16, 0x16, 0x16, 0x16, 0x16}, .eraseblocks_expected = {{0x8, 0x8, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_4}, {0x0, 0x10, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_5}}, .eraseblocks_expected_ind = 2, + .write_eraseblocks_expected = {{0x8, 0x8, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_4}, {0x0, 0x10, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_5}}, + .write_eraseblocks_expected_ind = 2, .erase_test_name = "Erase test case #18", .write_test_name = "Write test case #18", }, { @@ -808,8 +933,43 @@ 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0}, .eraseblocks_expected = {{0x0, 0x8, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_4}}, .eraseblocks_expected_ind = 1, + .write_eraseblocks_expected = {{0x0, 0x8, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_4}}, + .write_eraseblocks_expected_ind = 1, .erase_test_name = "Erase test case #19", .write_test_name = "Write test case #19", + }, { + /* + * Test case #20 + * + * Initial vs written: 3s+1d+3s+1d+3s+1d+3d+1s + * Layout with one region covering the whole chip + * Chip with eraseblocks 1, 4, 16. + */ + .chip = &chip_1_4_16, + .regions = {{0, MOCK_CHIP_SIZE - 1, "mock chip"}, {MOCK_CHIP_SIZE, MIN_REAL_CHIP_SIZE - 1, "longtail"}}, + .initial_buf = {0x0, 0x1, 0x2, 0xf, 0x4, 0x5, 0x6, 0xf, + 0x8, 0x9, 0xa, 0xf, 0xf, 0xf, 0xf, 0x1f}, + .erased_buf = {ERASE_VALUE, ERASE_VALUE, ERASE_VALUE, ERASE_VALUE, + ERASE_VALUE, ERASE_VALUE, ERASE_VALUE, ERASE_VALUE, + ERASE_VALUE, ERASE_VALUE, ERASE_VALUE, ERASE_VALUE, + ERASE_VALUE, ERASE_VALUE, ERASE_VALUE, ERASE_VALUE}, + .written_buf = {0x01, 0x11, 0x22, 0xf, 0x44, 0x55, 0x66, 0xf, + 0x88, 0x99, 0xaa, 0xf, 0xf, 0xf, 0xf, 0xf1}, + .eraseblocks_expected = {{0x0, 0x10, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_5}}, + .eraseblocks_expected_ind = 1, + .write_eraseblocks_expected = {{0x0, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x1, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x2, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x4, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x5, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x6, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x8, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0x9, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0xa, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}, + {0xf, 0x1, TEST_ERASE_INJECTOR_1}}, + .write_eraseblocks_expected_ind = 10, + .erase_test_name = "Erase test case #20", + .write_test_name = "Write test case #20", }, }; @@ -1180,6 +1340,13 @@ int chip_written = !memcmp(g_state.buf, current_test_case->written_buf, MOCK_CHIP_SIZE); + int eraseblocks_in_order = !memcmp(g_state.eraseblocks_actual, + current_test_case->write_eraseblocks_expected, + current_test_case->write_eraseblocks_expected_ind * sizeof(struct erase_invoke)); + + int eraseblocks_invocations = (g_state.eraseblocks_actual_ind == + current_test_case->write_eraseblocks_expected_ind); + int chip_verified = 1; for (unsigned int i = 0; i <= verify_end_boundary; i++) if (g_state.was_modified[i] && !g_state.was_verified[i]) { @@ -1194,6 +1361,22 @@ printf("Written chip memory state for %s is WRONG\n", current_test_case->write_test_name); + if (eraseblocks_in_order) + printf("Eraseblocks order of invocation for %s is CORRECT\n", + current_test_case->write_test_name); + else + printf("Eraseblocks order of invocation for %s is WRONG\n", + current_test_case->write_test_name); + + if (eraseblocks_invocations) + printf("Eraseblocks number of invocations for %s is CORRECT\n", + current_test_case->write_test_name); + else + printf("Eraseblocks number of invocations for %s is WRONG, expected %d actual %d\n", + current_test_case->write_test_name, + current_test_case->write_eraseblocks_expected_ind, + g_state.eraseblocks_actual_ind); + if (chip_verified) printf("Written chip memory state for %s was verified successfully\n", current_test_case->write_test_name); @@ -1203,6 +1386,8 @@ all_write_test_result |= ret; all_write_test_result |= !chip_written; + all_write_test_result |= !eraseblocks_in_order; + all_write_test_result |= !eraseblocks_invocations; all_write_test_result |= !chip_verified; teardown_chip(&layout); -- To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84783?usp=email To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://review.coreboot.org/settings?usp=email Gerrit-MessageType: merged Gerrit-Project: flashrom Gerrit-Branch: main Gerrit-Change-Id: I558fded2b9f876e33ca92dea324d90ef73f6a2be Gerrit-Change-Number: 84783 Gerrit-PatchSet: 2 Gerrit-Owner: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: Bill XIE <persmule(a)hardenedlinux.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: Peter Marheine <pmarheine(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply(a)coreboot.org>

1 0

[XS] Change in flashrom[main]: flashchips: Add Support for XMC XM25LU64C
by Anastasia Klimchuk (Code Review) 24 Oct '24

24 Oct '24

Anastasia Klimchuk has submitted this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84775?usp=email ) Change subject: flashchips: Add Support for XMC XM25LU64C ...................................................................... flashchips: Add Support for XMC XM25LU64C Add initial support for the SPI flash chip XM25LU64C Datasheet link: https://www.xmcwh.com/uploads/954/XM25LU64C%20_%20Ver1.4.pdf XM25QU64C/XM25LU64C Tested with ch341a programmer: probe, read, write, erase Change-Id: I8d1af7fbfb4c45db09ed5ac82c683d273c8151c7 Signed-off-by: Kan Sun <ssunkkan(a)gmail.com> Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84775 Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply(a)coreboot.org> Reviewed-by: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org> --- M flashchips.c M include/flashchips.h 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) Approvals: build bot (Jenkins): Verified Anastasia Klimchuk: Looks good to me, approved diff --git a/flashchips.c b/flashchips.c index b239b5e..f480078 100644 --- a/flashchips.c +++ b/flashchips.c @@ -22788,14 +22788,14 @@ { .vendor = "XMC", - .name = "XM25QU64C", + .name = "XM25QU64C/XM25LU64C", .bustype = BUS_SPI, .manufacture_id = ST_ID, .model_id = XMC_XM25QU64C, .total_size = 8192, .page_size = 256, .feature_bits = FEATURE_WRSR_WREN | FEATURE_OTP | FEATURE_QPI, - .tested = TEST_UNTESTED, + .tested = TEST_OK_PREW, .probe = PROBE_SPI_RDID, .probe_timing = TIMING_ZERO, .block_erasers = diff --git a/include/flashchips.h b/include/flashchips.h index 534304a..886ddc9 100644 --- a/include/flashchips.h +++ b/include/flashchips.h @@ -856,7 +856,7 @@ #define ST_M45PE80 0x4014 /* Same as XM25QH80B */ #define ST_M45PE16 0x4015 #define XMC_XM25QH64C 0x4017 /* Same as XM25QH64D */ -#define XMC_XM25QU64C 0x4117 +#define XMC_XM25QU64C 0x4117 /* Same as XM25LU64C */ #define XMC_XM25QU80B 0x5014 #define XMC_XM25QH16C 0x4015 /* Same as XM25QH16D */ #define XMC_XM25QU16C 0x5015 -- To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/84775?usp=email To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://review.coreboot.org/settings?usp=email Gerrit-MessageType: merged Gerrit-Project: flashrom Gerrit-Branch: main Gerrit-Change-Id: I8d1af7fbfb4c45db09ed5ac82c683d273c8151c7 Gerrit-Change-Number: 84775 Gerrit-PatchSet: 4 Gerrit-Owner: Ssunk <ssunkkan(a)gmail.com> Gerrit-Reviewer: Anastasia Klimchuk <aklm(a)chromium.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: Nikolai Artemiev <nartemiev(a)google.com> Gerrit-Reviewer: Stefan Reinauer <stefan.reinauer(a)coreboot.org> Gerrit-Reviewer: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply(a)coreboot.org>

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

flashrom-gerrit