flashrom November 2010

flashrom@flashrom.org

58 participants
146 discussions

[PATCH] Flush stdout after each message
by Ed Swierk 19 Jun '11

19 Jun '11

Currently messages like "Writing flash chip..." that don't end with a newline are buffered until the operation is complete, unless the particular write function generates status output in the meantime. Flushing stdout after each message ensures that the message appears immediately. Signed-off-by: Ed Swierk <eswierk(a)aristanetworks.com> --- Index: flashrom-0.9.2-r1057/cli_output.c =================================================================== --- flashrom-0.9.2-r1057.orig/cli_output.c +++ flashrom-0.9.2-r1057/cli_output.c @@ -47,5 +47,6 @@ int print(int type, const char *fmt, ... va_start(ap, fmt); ret = vfprintf(output_type, fmt, ap); va_end(ap); + fflush(output_type); return ret; }

4 4

Re: [flashrom] [PATCH] Don't ignore wait_82802ab() return value
by Stefan Reinauer 19 Jun '11

19 Jun '11

On 5/14/10 3:06 PM, Michael Karcher wrote: > Am Freitag, den 14.05.2010, 14:48 +0200 schrieb Stefan Reinauer: > >> On 4/16/10 6:21 PM, Stefan Reinauer wrote: >> >>> Look at the return value of wait_82802ab() >>> Index: sst49lfxxxc.c >>> =================================================================== >>> --- sst49lfxxxc.c (revision 993) >>> +++ sst49lfxxxc.c (working copy) >>> @@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ >>> chip_writeb(0xD0, bios + address); >>> >>> status = wait_82802ab(bios); >>> + print_status_82802ab(status); >>> > [...] > basically a good idea, but printing one status dump per erased block > seems a bit excessive, even in verbose mode, as there are some chips > with 4K sector size. Could you limit status printing to "status != > 0x80", as this is "ready, no error bits"? > That's what the 82802ab and sharp lhf00l04 do, too. So if you think the behavior should be changed, you should change it in all three places. Stefan

4 4

[PATCH] flashchips.c: Typo. s/don't/doesn't/
by Paul Menzel 19 Jun '11

19 Jun '11

Signed-off-by: Paul Menzel <paulepanter(a)users.sourceforge.net> --- flashchips.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------- 1 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) diff --git a/flashchips.c b/flashchips.c index a82c373..70a4ff1 100644 --- a/flashchips.c +++ b/flashchips.c @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = { .feature_bits = FEATURE_ADDR_2AA | FEATURE_SHORT_RESET, .tested = TEST_UNTESTED, .probe = probe_jedec, - .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine don't use probe_timing (am29f040b.c) */ + .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine doesn't use probe_timing (am29f040b.c) */ .block_erasers = { { @@ -181,7 +181,7 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = { .feature_bits = FEATURE_ADDR_2AA | FEATURE_SHORT_RESET, .tested = TEST_UNTESTED, .probe = probe_jedec, - .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine don't use probe_timing (am29f040b.c) */ + .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine doesn't use probe_timing (am29f040b.c) */ .block_erasers = { { @@ -233,7 +233,7 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = { .feature_bits = FEATURE_ADDR_2AA | FEATURE_SHORT_RESET, .tested = TEST_UNTESTED, .probe = probe_jedec, - .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine don't use probe_timing (am29f040b.c) */ + .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine doesn't use probe_timing (am29f040b.c) */ .block_erasers = { { @@ -259,7 +259,7 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = { .feature_bits = FEATURE_ADDR_2AA | FEATURE_SHORT_RESET, .tested = TEST_UNTESTED, .probe = probe_jedec, - .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine don't use probe_timing (am29f040b.c) */ + .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine doesn't use probe_timing (am29f040b.c) */ .block_erasers = { { @@ -1230,7 +1230,7 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = { .feature_bits = FEATURE_ADDR_2AA | FEATURE_SHORT_RESET, .tested = TEST_UNTESTED, .probe = probe_jedec, - .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine don't use probe_timing (mx29f002.c) */ + .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine doesn't use probe_timing (mx29f002.c) */ .block_erasers = { { @@ -1261,7 +1261,7 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = { .feature_bits = FEATURE_ADDR_2AA | FEATURE_SHORT_RESET, .tested = TEST_OK_PRW, .probe = probe_jedec, - .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine don't use probe_timing (mx29f002.c) */ + .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine doesn't use probe_timing (mx29f002.c) */ .block_erasers = { { @@ -1292,7 +1292,7 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = { .feature_bits = FEATURE_ADDR_2AA | FEATURE_SHORT_RESET, .tested = TEST_UNTESTED, .probe = probe_jedec, - .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine don't use probe_timing (am29f040b.c) */ + .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine doesn't use probe_timing (am29f040b.c) */ .block_erasers = { { @@ -2280,7 +2280,7 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = { .feature_bits = FEATURE_ADDR_SHIFTED | FEATURE_EITHER_RESET, .tested = TEST_UNTESTED, .probe = probe_m29f400bt, - .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine don't use probe_timing (m29f400bt.c) */ + .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine doesn't use probe_timing (m29f400bt.c) */ .block_erasers = { { @@ -2311,7 +2311,7 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = { .feature_bits = FEATURE_ADDR_SHIFTED | FEATURE_EITHER_RESET, .tested = TEST_UNTESTED, .probe = probe_m29f400bt, - .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine don't use probe_timing (m29f400bt.c) */ + .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine doesn't use probe_timing (m29f400bt.c) */ .block_erasers = { { @@ -2931,7 +2931,7 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = { .feature_bits = FEATURE_ADDR_2AA | FEATURE_SHORT_RESET, .tested = TEST_UNTESTED, .probe = probe_jedec, - .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine don't use probe_timing (mx29f002.c) */ + .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine doesn't use probe_timing (mx29f002.c) */ .block_erasers = { { @@ -2963,7 +2963,7 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = { .feature_bits = FEATURE_ADDR_2AA | FEATURE_SHORT_RESET, .tested = TEST_UNTESTED, .probe = probe_jedec, - .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine don't use probe_timing (mx29f002.c) */ + .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine doesn't use probe_timing (mx29f002.c) */ .block_erasers = { { @@ -2995,7 +2995,7 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = { .feature_bits = FEATURE_ADDR_2AA | FEATURE_SHORT_RESET, .tested = TEST_UNTESTED, .probe = probe_jedec, - .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine don't use probe_timing (mx29f002.c) */ + .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine doesn't use probe_timing (mx29f002.c) */ .block_erasers = { { @@ -3026,7 +3026,7 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = { .feature_bits = FEATURE_ADDR_2AA | FEATURE_SHORT_RESET, .tested = TEST_OK_PRW, .probe = probe_jedec, - .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine don't use probe_timing (mx29f002.c) */ + .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine doesn't use probe_timing (mx29f002.c) */ .block_erasers = { { @@ -3057,7 +3057,7 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = { .feature_bits = FEATURE_ADDR_2AA | FEATURE_SHORT_RESET, .tested = TEST_UNTESTED, .probe = probe_jedec, - .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine don't use probe_timing (mx29f002.c) */ + .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine doesn't use probe_timing (mx29f002.c) */ .block_erasers = { { @@ -3917,7 +3917,7 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = { .feature_bits = 0, .tested = TEST_UNTESTED, .probe = probe_82802ab, - .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine don't use probe_timing (sst28sf040.c) */ + .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine doesn't use probe_timing (sst28sf040.c) */ .block_erasers = { { @@ -4368,7 +4368,7 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = { .feature_bits = FEATURE_REGISTERMAP, .tested = TEST_UNTESTED, .probe = probe_82802ab, - .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine don't use probe_timing (sst49lfxxxc.c) */ + .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine doesn't use probe_timing (sst49lfxxxc.c) */ .block_erasers = { { @@ -4431,7 +4431,7 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = { .feature_bits = FEATURE_REGISTERMAP, .tested = TEST_UNTESTED, .probe = probe_82802ab, - .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine don't use probe_timing (sst49lfxxxc.c) */ + .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine doesn't use probe_timing (sst49lfxxxc.c) */ .block_erasers = { { @@ -4463,7 +4463,7 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = { .feature_bits = FEATURE_REGISTERMAP, .tested = TEST_OK_PRW, .probe = probe_82802ab, - .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine don't use probe_timing (sst49lfxxxc.c) */ + .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine doesn't use probe_timing (sst49lfxxxc.c) */ .block_erasers = { { @@ -4640,7 +4640,7 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = { .feature_bits = FEATURE_REGISTERMAP, .tested = TEST_OK_PRW, .probe = probe_82802ab, - .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine don't use probe_timing (sst49lfxxxc.c) */ + .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine doesn't use probe_timing (sst49lfxxxc.c) */ .block_erasers = { { @@ -5040,7 +5040,7 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = { .feature_bits = FEATURE_ADDR_2AA | FEATURE_EITHER_RESET, .tested = TEST_UNTESTED, .probe = probe_jedec, - .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine don't use probe_timing (am29f040b.c) */ + .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine doesn't use probe_timing (am29f040b.c) */ .block_erasers = { { @@ -5067,7 +5067,7 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = { .feature_bits = FEATURE_ADDR_SHIFTED | FEATURE_EITHER_RESET, .tested = TEST_UNTESTED, .probe = probe_m29f400bt, - .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine don't use probe_timing (m29f400bt.c) */ + .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine doesn't use probe_timing (m29f400bt.c) */ .block_erasers = { { @@ -5313,7 +5313,7 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = { .feature_bits = FEATURE_REGISTERMAP, .tested = TEST_UNTESTED, .probe = probe_82802ab, - .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine don't use probe_timing (sst49lfxxxc.c) */ + .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine doesn't use probe_timing (sst49lfxxxc.c) */ .block_erasers = { { @@ -5345,7 +5345,7 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = { .feature_bits = FEATURE_REGISTERMAP, .tested = TEST_UNTESTED, .probe = probe_82802ab, - .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine don't use probe_timing (82802ab.c) */ + .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine doesn't use probe_timing (82802ab.c) */ .block_erasers = { { @@ -5372,7 +5372,7 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = { .feature_bits = FEATURE_REGISTERMAP, .tested = TEST_OK_PR, .probe = probe_82802ab, - .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine don't use probe_timing (82802ab.c) */ + .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine doesn't use probe_timing (82802ab.c) */ .block_erasers = { { @@ -5399,7 +5399,7 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = { .feature_bits = FEATURE_REGISTERMAP, .tested = TEST_OK_PR, .probe = probe_82802ab, - .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine don't use probe_timing (82802ab.c) */ + .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine doesn't use probe_timing (82802ab.c) */ .block_erasers = { { @@ -6010,7 +6010,7 @@ struct flashchip flashchips[] = { .feature_bits = FEATURE_LONG_RESET, .tested = TEST_OK_PRW, .probe = probe_w29ee011, - .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine don't use probe_timing (w29ee011.c) */ + .probe_timing = TIMING_IGNORED, /* routine doesn't use probe_timing (w29ee011.c) */ .block_erasers = { { -- 1.7.1

3 3

Success flashing Supermicro X7SPA-HF
by Jochen Schulz 19 Jun '11

19 Jun '11

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks and report that I just successfully flashed the BIOS of my brand-new mainboard Supermicro X7SPA-HF¹ using flashrom. After wasting a whole evening trying to make a 4MB BIOS image fit onto a (virtual) floppy, I stumbled upon flashrom again and, without much thought, decided to give it a try. I tried reading the current BIOS first and after that worked I flashed the file X7SPA0.526 from the current zip download. I ignored the message that erasing is untested and another one that suggested that a single block or something like that couldn't be eraed. After five minutes of waiting I became a little bit nervous, but two or three minutes later flashrom was finished and I could reboot successfully. So, thanks again, flashrom saved my day. If you need any further information for your documentation, please Cc me as I am not subscribed. J. ¹ http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/ATOM/ICH9/X7SPA.cfm?typ=H&IP… -- When I am doing sex I wonder if my emotions can be detected by alien civilisations. [Agree] [Disagree] <http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>

2 1

"ST M25P80" (1024 KB, SPI) - Tested - WORKS
by Harald Gutmann 19 Jun '11

19 Jun '11

hargut@benchvice:~/flashrom$ sudo ./flashrom -w ../coreboot.svn/build/coreboot.rom flashrom v0.9.3-r1223 on Linux 2.6.32-5-amd64 (x86_64), built with libpci 3.1.7, GCC 4.4.5 20100913 (prerelease), little endian flashrom is free software, get the source code at http://www.flashrom.org Calibrating delay loop... OK. coreboot table found at 0x7fffe000. Found ITE Super I/O, ID 0x8716. Found chipset "NVIDIA MCP55", enabling flash write... OK. This chipset supports the following protocols: Non-SPI. 4 byte RDID not supported on this SPI controller 4 byte RDID not supported on this SPI controller 4 byte RDID not supported on this SPI controller 4 byte RDID not supported on this SPI controller 4 byte RDID not supported on this SPI controller 4 byte RDID not supported on this SPI controller 4 byte RDID not supported on this SPI controller 4 byte RDID not supported on this SPI controller 4 byte RDID not supported on this SPI controller 4 byte RDID not supported on this SPI controller 4 byte RDID not supported on this SPI controller Found chip "ST M25P80" (1024 KB, SPI) at physical address 0xfff00000. 4 byte RDID not supported on this SPI controller === This flash part has status UNTESTED for operations: ERASE WRITE The test status of this chip may have been updated in the latest development version of flashrom. If you are running the latest development version, please email a report to flashrom(a)flashrom.org if any of the above operations work correctly for you with this flash part. Please include the flashrom output with the additional -V option for all operations you tested (-V, -Vr, -Vw, -VE), and mention which mainboard or programmer you tested. Please mention your board in the subject line. Thanks for your help! Erasing flash chip... SUCCESS. Writing flash chip... COMPLETE. Verifying flash... VERIFIED. hargut@benchvice:~/flashrom$

2 1

GA-6VXE7
by Justin Doiel 19 Jun '11

19 Jun '11

The attached is the output of flashrom -EV on the gigabyte GA-6VXE7. Erase worked. we verified all FFs, and wrote the contents back successfully. Juston Doiel

2 1

Asus A8N-VM (Pm49FL004) - Flashed OK
by Dave B 19 Jun '11

19 Jun '11

Hi, Thanks loads to developers past and present for flashrom ! I collected the info from my successful attempt on an Asus A8N-VM m/b which isn't in your list at flashrom.org/Supported_hardware, if you want to add it. ( http://www.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=nwcuFMseNd3DhmVA ) Session summary: ===== dave@K-Matrix:~/BIOS/ASUS_AMI/ROMs/q403$ sudo flashrom -V -r 0403_flashrom-r_2010-10-23.ROM flashrom v0.9.2-r1028 on Linux 2.6.35-22-generic (i686), built with libpci 3.0.0, GCC 4.4.4, little endian flashrom is free software, get the source code at http://www.flashrom.org Calibrating delay loop... OS timer resolution is 2 usecs, 790M loops per second, delay more than 10% too short (got 73% of expected delay), recalculating... 944M loops per second, delay more than 10% too short (got 87% of expected delay), recalculating... 899M loops per second, delay more than 10% too short (got 83% of expected delay), recalculating... 945M loops per second, delay more than 10% too short (got 87% of expected delay), recalculating... 919M loops per second, delay loop is unreliable, trying to continue 10 myus = 10 us, 100 myus = 85 us, 1000 myus = 834 us, 10000 myus = 18535 us, 8 myus = 9 us, OK. Initializing internal programmer No coreboot table found. DMI string system-manufacturer: "System manufacturer" DMI string system-product-name: "System Product Name" DMI string system-version: "System Version" DMI string baseboard-manufacturer: "ASUSTeK Computer INC." DMI string baseboard-product-name: "A8N-VM" DMI string baseboard-version: "Rev 1.xx" DMI string chassis-type: "Desktop" Found chipset "NVIDIA MCP51", enabling flash write... chipset PCI ID is 10de:0261, OK. This chipset supports the following protocols: Non-SPI. Probing for ... <CUT> Probing for PMC Pm49FL004, 512 KB: probe_jedec_common: id1 0x9d, id2 0x6e Found chip "PMC Pm49FL004" (512 KB, LPC,FWH) at physical address 0xfff80000. Probing for ... <CUT> Reading flash... done. dave@K-Matrix:~/BIOS/ASUS_AMI/ROMs/q403$ ---------- dave@K-Matrix:/proc/driver$ sudo modprobe nvram [sudo] password for dave: ### backup nvram dave@K-Matrix:/media/SGii/MyData/BIOS$ cd /media/SGii/MyData/BIOS/ASUS_AMI/nvram dave@K-Matrix:/media/SGii/MyData/BIOS/ASUS_AMI/nvram$ sudo dd if=/dev/nvram of=2010-10-23 0+1 records in 0+1 records out 114 bytes (114 B) copied, 0.000946501 s, 120 kB/s dave@K-Matrix:/media/SGii/MyData/BIOS/ASUS_AMI/nvram$ # #----------> HERE WE GO ... WISH ME LUCK ;) # dave@K-Matrix:/media/SGii/MyData/BIOS/ASUS_AMI/ROMs/0702$ sudo flashrom -w 0702.ROM # write new flash ROM image flashrom v0.9.2-r1028 on Linux 2.6.35-22-generic (i686), built with libpci 3.0.0, GCC 4.4.4, little endian flashrom is free software, get the source code at http://www.flashrom.org Calibrating delay loop... OK. No coreboot table found. Found chipset "NVIDIA MCP51", enabling flash write... OK. This chipset supports the following protocols: Non-SPI. Found chip "PMC Pm49FL004" (512 KB, LPC,FWH) at physical address 0xfff80000. Flash image seems to be a legacy BIOS. Disabling checks. Writing flash chip... Erasing flash chip... SUCCESS. Programming page: DONE!ss: 0x0007f000 COMPLETE. Verifying flash... VERIFIED. dave@K-Matrix:/media/SGii/MyData/BIOS/ASUS_AMI/ROMs/0702$ ===== Really valuable work - thanks again ! Best regards, Dave B

2 1

Report for successful operation: WRITE on Lanner EM-8510C V1.1B (Flash SST49LF004A/B)
by Christian Motz 19 Jun '11

19 Jun '11

To whom it may concern, I just tested the WRITE operation with the SVN r1216 version of flashrom on a Lanner EM-8510C mainboard (V1.1B, chip "SST SST49LF004A/B") with POSITIVE result. Attached find the log of the operation (flashrom -Vw) as requested. Best regards, -- Christian Motz Software Engineer Funkwerk IP-Appliances GmbH Mönchhaldenstr. 28 D-70191 Stuttgart Tel: +49 711 900300 - 66 Fax: +49 711 900300 - 90 E-Mail: christian.motz(a)funkwerk-ec.com Location: GmbH Nuernberg, Local Court Nuernberg, HRB 25481 Managing Directors: Bernd Büttner -------------------------------- The information contained in this e-mail has been carefully researched, but the possibility of it being inapplicable in individual cases cannot be ruled out. We therefore regret that we cannot accept responsibility or liability of any kind whatsoever for the correctness of the information given. Please notify us if you discover that information is inapplicable.

2 1

Asus P5VD1-X: Instant success
by Olle Gross 19 Jun '11

19 Jun '11

Hi, just wanted to tell that i successfully flashed the bios of my old Asus P5VD1-X with flashrom, so i guess it could be added to the supported list. Attaching output of flashrom -V, lspci -nnvvvxxx, superiotool -deV. New bios version 0704 downloaded from asus.com, can't link directly cos they require captcha for download. Everything works just fine, and the bios menu reports the new version. Just one thing that might or might not be of any importance, i noted that lspci reports the board as "ASUSTeK Computer Inc. P4V800D-X Mainboard [1043:8199]". This is wrong, it's a P5VD1-X - at least it says so on the board. You think this could cause any problems, or is it just cosmetic? Regards, Olof

2 1

SST39SF020A write ok, and message question
by Andrew Morgan 19 Jun '11

19 Jun '11

Log attached. When running 'flashrom' on its own I got this message: This flash part has status UNTESTED for operations: WRITE The test status of this chip may have been updated in the latest development version of flashrom. If you are running the latest development version, please email a report to flashrom(a)flashrom.org if any of the above operations work correctly for you with this flash part. Please include the flashrom output with the additional -V option for all operations you tested (-V, -Vr, -Vw, -VE), and mention which mainboard or programmer you tested. Please mention your board in the subject line. Thanks for your help! Should the text "Please mention your board in the subject line." in this case say "flash part" or "flash chp" instead of "board"? I'm assuming the board name is important for un-tested boards or board enables, whereas in this case it is the flash chip name which is important? -- Andrew.

2 1

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
15
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

flashrom November 2010