flashrom August 2011

flashrom@flashrom.org

42 participants
219 discussions

Re: [flashrom] [PATCH] Add board enable for ASUS P5LP-LE
by Idwer Vollering 25 Aug '11

25 Aug '11

2011/8/25 Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner(a)student.tuwien.ac.at>: > Based on the REing of Michael Karcher The result can be found here: http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/flashrom/2010-August/004500.html > and a good guess of Idwer Vollering. > > Tested-by: Leon Zhang <leoncamel at gmail.com> > Tested-by: medhi Tested-by: medhi <nefkongo(a)hotmail.com> Acked-by: Idwer Vollering <vidwer(a)gmail.com> > --- > i have added the DMI match and changed the board enable and wiki comments > a bit. i am not sure if this is the right way to add it, because there are so many > variations, but we can change that later too. > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner(a)student.tuwien.ac.at> > --- > board_enable.c | 5 +++++ > print.c | 1 + > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/board_enable.c b/board_enable.c > index b362b54..0f2300c 100644 > --- a/board_enable.c > +++ b/board_enable.c > @@ -1517,6 +1517,9 @@ static int intel_ich_gpio22_raise(void) > /* > * Suited for: > * - ASUS A8Jm (laptop): Intel 945 + ICH7 > + * - ASUS P5LP-LE used in ... > + * - HP Media Center m7270.fr Desktop PC as "Lithium-UL8E" > + * - Epson Endeavor MT7700 > */ > static int intel_ich_gpio34_raise(void) > { > @@ -2024,6 +2027,8 @@ const struct board_pciid_enable board_pciid_enables[] = { > {0x8086, 0x266a, 0x1043, 0x80a6, 0x8086, 0x2668, 0x1043, 0x814e, NULL, NULL, NULL, P3, "ASUS", "P5GD1 Pro", 0, OK, intel_ich_gpio21_raise}, > {0x8086, 0x266a, 0x1043, 0x80a6, 0x8086, 0x2668, 0x1043, 0x813d, "^P5GD2-Premium$", NULL, NULL, P3, "ASUS", "P5GD2 Premium", 0, OK, intel_ich_gpio21_raise}, > {0x8086, 0x266a, 0x1043, 0x80a6, 0x8086, 0x2668, 0x1043, 0x813d, NULL, NULL, NULL, P3, "ASUS", "P5GDC Deluxe", 0, OK, intel_ich_gpio21_raise}, > + {0x8086, 0x27b8, 0x103c, 0x2a22, 0x8086, 0x2770, 0x103c, 0x2a22, "^LITHIUM$", NULL, NULL, P3, "ASUS", "P5LP-LE", 0, OK, intel_ich_gpio34_raise}, > + {0x8086, 0x27b8, 0x1043, 0x2a22, 0x8086, 0x2770, 0x1043, 0x2a22, "^P5LP-LE$", NULL, NULL, P3, "ASUS", "P5LP-LE", 0, OK, intel_ich_gpio34_raise}, > {0x8086, 0x27da, 0x1043, 0x8179, 0x8086, 0x27b8, 0x1043, 0x8179, "^P5LD2$", NULL, NULL, P3, "ASUS", "P5LD2", 0, NT, intel_ich_gpio16_raise}, > {0x10DE, 0x0030, 0x1043, 0x818a, 0x8086, 0x100E, 0x1043, 0x80EE, NULL, NULL, NULL, P3, "ASUS", "P5ND2-SLI Deluxe", 0, OK, nvidia_mcp_gpio10_raise}, > {0x8086, 0x24dd, 0x1043, 0x80a6, 0x8086, 0x2570, 0x1043, 0x8157, NULL, NULL, NULL, P3, "ASUS", "P5PE-VM", 0, OK, intel_ich_gpio21_raise}, > diff --git a/print.c b/print.c > index c25cb3e..42e031a 100644 > --- a/print.c > +++ b/print.c > @@ -483,6 +483,7 @@ const struct board_info boards_known[] = { > B("ASUS", "P5KC", 1, "http://www.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=fFZ8oUIGmLpwNMjj", NULL), > B("ASUS", "P5L-MX", 1, "http://www.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=X70d3NCzH2DE9vWH", NULL), > B("ASUS", "P5LD2", 0, NULL, "Untested board enable."), > + B("ASUS", "P5LP-LE", 1, "http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?docname=c00379616&tmp_task=prod…", "This is an OEM board from HP and Epson (Endeavor MT7700). The HP names vary and not all of them were tested."), > B("ASUS", "P5GD1 Pro", 1, "http://www.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=50M49xQh71EZOeM1", NULL), > B("ASUS", "P5N-E SLI", 0, "http://www.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=KyHOsOKWujC2QguJ", "Needs a board enable (http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/3298/)."), > B("ASUS", "P5N32-E SLI", 1, "http://www.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=vBZLIBtPzYB2bLcb", NULL), > -- > 1.7.1 > > > _______________________________________________ > flashrom mailing list > flashrom(a)flashrom.org > http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom >

1 0

[PATCH] Add board enable for ASUS P5LP-LE
by Stefan Tauner 25 Aug '11

25 Aug '11

Based on the REing of Michael Karcher and a good guess of Idwer Vollering. Tested-by: Leon Zhang <leoncamel at gmail.com> Tested-by: medhi --- i have added the DMI match and changed the board enable and wiki comments a bit. i am not sure if this is the right way to add it, because there are so many variations, but we can change that later too. Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner(a)student.tuwien.ac.at> --- board_enable.c | 5 +++++ print.c | 1 + 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/board_enable.c b/board_enable.c index b362b54..0f2300c 100644 --- a/board_enable.c +++ b/board_enable.c @@ -1517,6 +1517,9 @@ static int intel_ich_gpio22_raise(void) /* * Suited for: * - ASUS A8Jm (laptop): Intel 945 + ICH7 + * - ASUS P5LP-LE used in ... + * - HP Media Center m7270.fr Desktop PC as "Lithium-UL8E" + * - Epson Endeavor MT7700 */ static int intel_ich_gpio34_raise(void) { @@ -2024,6 +2027,8 @@ const struct board_pciid_enable board_pciid_enables[] = { {0x8086, 0x266a, 0x1043, 0x80a6, 0x8086, 0x2668, 0x1043, 0x814e, NULL, NULL, NULL, P3, "ASUS", "P5GD1 Pro", 0, OK, intel_ich_gpio21_raise}, {0x8086, 0x266a, 0x1043, 0x80a6, 0x8086, 0x2668, 0x1043, 0x813d, "^P5GD2-Premium$", NULL, NULL, P3, "ASUS", "P5GD2 Premium", 0, OK, intel_ich_gpio21_raise}, {0x8086, 0x266a, 0x1043, 0x80a6, 0x8086, 0x2668, 0x1043, 0x813d, NULL, NULL, NULL, P3, "ASUS", "P5GDC Deluxe", 0, OK, intel_ich_gpio21_raise}, + {0x8086, 0x27b8, 0x103c, 0x2a22, 0x8086, 0x2770, 0x103c, 0x2a22, "^LITHIUM$", NULL, NULL, P3, "ASUS", "P5LP-LE", 0, OK, intel_ich_gpio34_raise}, + {0x8086, 0x27b8, 0x1043, 0x2a22, 0x8086, 0x2770, 0x1043, 0x2a22, "^P5LP-LE$", NULL, NULL, P3, "ASUS", "P5LP-LE", 0, OK, intel_ich_gpio34_raise}, {0x8086, 0x27da, 0x1043, 0x8179, 0x8086, 0x27b8, 0x1043, 0x8179, "^P5LD2$", NULL, NULL, P3, "ASUS", "P5LD2", 0, NT, intel_ich_gpio16_raise}, {0x10DE, 0x0030, 0x1043, 0x818a, 0x8086, 0x100E, 0x1043, 0x80EE, NULL, NULL, NULL, P3, "ASUS", "P5ND2-SLI Deluxe", 0, OK, nvidia_mcp_gpio10_raise}, {0x8086, 0x24dd, 0x1043, 0x80a6, 0x8086, 0x2570, 0x1043, 0x8157, NULL, NULL, NULL, P3, "ASUS", "P5PE-VM", 0, OK, intel_ich_gpio21_raise}, diff --git a/print.c b/print.c index c25cb3e..42e031a 100644 --- a/print.c +++ b/print.c @@ -483,6 +483,7 @@ const struct board_info boards_known[] = { B("ASUS", "P5KC", 1, "http://www.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=fFZ8oUIGmLpwNMjj", NULL), B("ASUS", "P5L-MX", 1, "http://www.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=X70d3NCzH2DE9vWH", NULL), B("ASUS", "P5LD2", 0, NULL, "Untested board enable."), + B("ASUS", "P5LP-LE", 1, "http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?docname=c00379616&tmp_task=prod…", "This is an OEM board from HP and Epson (Endeavor MT7700). The HP names vary and not all of them were tested."), B("ASUS", "P5GD1 Pro", 1, "http://www.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=50M49xQh71EZOeM1", NULL), B("ASUS", "P5N-E SLI", 0, "http://www.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=KyHOsOKWujC2QguJ", "Needs a board enable (http://patchwork.coreboot.org/patch/3298/)."), B("ASUS", "P5N32-E SLI", 1, "http://www.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=vBZLIBtPzYB2bLcb", NULL), -- 1.7.1

1 0

Re: [flashrom] [PATCH] Board enable for ASUS P5LP-LE
by Uwe Hermann 24 Aug '11

24 Aug '11

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 06:27:15PM +0200, Michael Karcher wrote: > + * - ASUS P5LP-LE (Epson/HP OEM) OK, this one is going to be interesting. The board is made by ASUS for HP, it seems. HP calls it "Leonite" or "Leonite-GL8E". http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?lc=en&dlc=en&cc=us&docname=c008… But that would have been too easy. There are a bunch of other boards on the HP site which are also called P5LP-LE, but have different HP code names. From a quick glance I see at least: P5LP-LE (Leonite) P5LP-LE (Leonite2) P5LP-LE (Lithium) P5LP-LE (Limestone) P5LP-LE (Emery) Fun! I don't know how to differ between them, the dmidecode from Leon Zhang <leoncamel(a)gmail.com> said: DMI string system-manufacturer: "EPSON DIRECT CORP." DMI string system-product-name: "Endeavor MT7700" DMI string system-version: "" DMI string baseboard-manufacturer: "ASUSTek Computer INC." DMI string baseboard-product-name: "P5LP-LE" We don't know if other "P5LP-LE" might have the "Leonite" (or other) HP code name in there or not. Maybe something is printed as silkscreen on the board? An then one of these HP OEM boards is built into the Epson "Endeavor MT7700" system/PC. So it's a bit unclear which vendor/board name we should use in this case. It's probably best to mention all of them for better googling results. Attached is a slightly updated patch for review, let me know what you think. Uwe. -- http://hermann-uwe.de | http://sigrok.org http://randomprojects.org | http://unmaintained-free-software.org

3 2

Failed Flashing Intel 3420 Chipset
by Shailendra Sodhi 24 Aug '11

24 Aug '11

Hi, Hi we use flashroom tool to flash our X8DTH and X8DTU Supermicro boards now when we try to flash X8SIE-F Motherboard with Intel 3420 chipset flashrom fails with error. Attached a file(s) detailing error. Please let me know if any further information required to make this work. Regards, Shailendra

2 2

Re: [flashrom] report for Intel QM67 | Winbond W25Q64 - layout patches
by Tadas Slotkus 24 Aug '11

24 Aug '11

> I'm using the 0.9.4 from http://www.flashrom.org/Downloads. > > Isn't this the latest? For developing patches use latest svn revision.

1 0

Re: [flashrom] report for Intel QM67 | Winbond W25Q64 - layout patches
by Stefan Tauner 24 Aug '11

24 Aug '11

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:38:03 +0200 "Frei, Thomas (GE Germany)" <Thomas.Frei(a)ge.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I applied the patches 0001 - 0007, but now flashrom doesn't compile any more... :-( > > flashrom.c: In function verify_flash: > flashrom.c: 1234:3: error: implicit declaration of function msg_gsbg2 > flashrom.c: At top level: > flashrom.c: 1305:5: error: redefinition of write_buf_to_file > flashrom.c: 1281:5: note: previous definition of write_buf_to_file was here > flashrom.c: In function write_buf_to_file: > flashrom.c: 1311:2: error: implicit declaration of function write_dump_to_file > > can you please help here? > hi hm. how did you apply them? the reason i ask is because "msg_gsbg2" should have been "msg_gdbg2" (message general debug2) and it actually is in my posted patches afaics. the patches compile on my machine (on top of r1416 btw, probably other revisions too, but that's the one i compile tested with a few moments ago). which revision did you checkout/extract/fetch before applying the patches? i assume you are using one that is too old. -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner

2 1

[RFC] unsignify flashchip and programmer structs
by Stefan Tauner 23 Aug '11

23 Aug '11

i don't like the use of generic "int" qualifiers at all, even more the unsigned version for things like absolute addresses, lengths and sizes. of course negative values make sense in return types to indicate errors and in the case a function returns the length of actually bytes written on success and negative values on errors it makes sense to keep the parameters the same type (else the parameter length might be too big to return it on success). i would also like to change the types to more accurate ones someday (uint32_t etc.) instead, but i think that is not important as signedness. i want to assure myself that no one objects changing the following things to unsigned before i create a patch (which should be straight forward, but of course i will need to change quite many lines and also check that all functions will stay correct...). please speak up now or forever hold your peace etc... :) spi_programmer: int max_data_read; int max_data_write; (start + len parameters of:) int (*read)(struct flashchip *flash, uint8_t *buf, int start, int len); int (*write_256)(struct flashchip *flash, uint8_t *buf, int start, int len); (the return values just indicate success and failure with 0 and 1) struct flashchip: int total_size; (should also be converted to bytes instead of kB... i know this is on the todo already) int page_size; (start + len parameters of:) int (*write) (struct flashchip *flash, uint8_t *buf, int start, int len); int (*read) (struct flashchip *flash, uint8_t *buf, int start, int len); (again, the return value just indicates success, not bytes written) }; -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner

1 1

Re: [flashrom] ASUS P5N-D
by Joshua Roys 23 Aug '11

23 Aug '11

On 08/18/2011 04:17 AM, Guillaume Poirier-Morency wrote: > I've been told, after an unsuccessful flashing, to send you these > outputs about my motherboard. > > My board remained intact! > > If you are interested into enabling it and developing patches to make it > compatible, I do not mind giving you feedback. > > Regards, > > Arteymis > > Hello, Please try the attached patch on top of the latest SVN and let us know how it works (reply with the output from `flashrom -Vw [...]'). For the devs: the board enable was identical to the P5N-E SLI, so I have bundled them together. Josh

3 4

Re: [flashrom] ASUS P5N-D
by Stefan Tauner 23 Aug '11

23 Aug '11

On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 06:13:26 -0400 Guillaume Poirier-Morency <guillaumepoiriermorency(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I have checked my bash history. You were right, I was using 9.2. > > I have then moved to the svn folder and used ./flashrom and curiously, look > at what I have got from the log file... > > The file is slightly different, but it's still showing version 9.2 > > Launching the flashrom executable without any arguments, it tells me I'm > using 9.4 > > I suppose there is version typo in the program itself. Otherwise, maybe the > patch affect the version this way. i seriously doubt that. there is only a single string containing the version in the program and only one place where this single string is printed... i would recommend uninstalling the old version anyway. in this case it was not important, but in other cases it may break stuff. > Anyway, It's really using 9.4 and it works very well! that's the important thing anyway :) i'll make the appropriate changes in our repository, thanks for testing! -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner

1 0

Re: [flashrom] ASUS P5N-D
by Stefan Tauner 23 Aug '11

23 Aug '11

On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 05:34:28 -0400 Guillaume Poirier-Morency <guillaumepoiriermorency(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I think there will soon be a new supported motherboard on your list! > > Here's the flashrom -Vw [...] output. nice! but what did you do exactly? the log shows version 0.9.2. did you patch that ancient version? why? could it be that you just rewrote with the old version by accident to get the verbose log? NB: the write protection remains disabled until reboot. -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner

2 1

← Newer
1
...
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
...
22
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

flashrom August 2011