I'm trying to find out which external programmers should be supported next.
1. There was talk of an AVR-based new programmer using the serprog
protocol on IRC by someone with the nick "coldelectrons", but I have no
idea if he/she is reading this mail. IMHO more hardware using the
serprog protocol is always a good idea.
2. All those Willem/Sivava variants. People regularly request those, but
I don't think anyone in here owns the hardware.
3. RayeR's SPIPGM. I have a preliminary patch which could work, but I
don't have the hardware. Will send the patch to the list soon.
4. LPC^2, Milksop, CheapLPC and other programmers from the Xbox modding
5. Dozens of SPI programmer hardware projects scattered over the net.
Too many to count, and I'm not sure which of them has more than one user.
In general, it seems creating a new programmer hardware design is like
writing IRC clients: A nice way to get started in the field. I have no
problems merging flashrom support for all of them, but I won't implement
support for all of them myself.
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:20:19 +0200
Mattias Mattsson <vitplister(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I was able to run flashrom under Linux on PPC (big endian) hardware
> with two small modifications in internal.c and processor_enable.c (see
> attached patch). Not sure if this is the right way to do it but it
> seems to work for me.
i am resending this patch (unchanged) because patchwork did not pick it
up correctly. please do send one patch per mail only in the future
until we have something really working. :)
Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner
Following patch adds the en29lv640b which needs special command sequences in 8
bit mode. Also, 8 bit programming needs actually 16bit double byte program.
The chip is found on bifferboard.
Please check the patch and let me know.
Signed-off-by: Rudolf Marek <r.marek(a)assembler.cz>
Am 21.07.2011 17:54 schrieb Stefan Tauner:
> previously the dummies were initialized to be empty (all ones), which makes writes skip
> erasing altogether. with this patch the default is to fill it with random bytes instead and the
> old behavior can be enforced with stating "empty=yes" on the command line.
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner(a)student.tuwien.ac.at>
Does the following not work for you?
dd if=/dev/urandom bs=1k count=4k of=oldimage.bin
flashrom -p dummy:emulate=SST25VF032B,image=oldimage.bin -w newimage.bin
I've tried to run flashrom -V to see if it could identify the chip on my
new board (AsRock M3A-GLAN), and it got stuck while probing for the
I've tried commenting out that specific chip (AMIC A25L05PT) and then it
gets stuck on the next one. Then commented out all AMIC chips, and it
got stuck on the next one (the first ATMEL on the list)
I've tried with an older flashrom (0.9.2-r1141). It skipped some AMD
chips, then got stuck on AMIC again.
Talked with "tlt" and "stefanct" on irc and they asked for a strace and
a gdb backtrace. Strace produced no results. Gdb log is attached.
"stefanct" tried and reproduced it on a machine with nicintel_spi, but
warned it was with an unsupported nic:
thanks for your mail. I have added the flashrom mailing list in CC:
because we should develop a generic way to handle DualBIOS and similar
On 09.04.2010 08:12, Vadim Girlin wrote:
> I'm going to try coreboot on Gigabyte GA-MA770-UD3.
> It's AMD 770 (RX780 / SB700).
> My motherboard supports hardware dual bios - with two chips on it.
> I'm going to try flashing backup chip and boot from it. It seems to be
> possible - I've tested it (flashing at least). Chips on this board could
> be switched by changing bit 0 at undocumented register EF on LDN 7 of
> IT8720. I can use slightly patched flashrom for accessing any chip I
> want without any problems. And this is tested many times.
> My idea is to use backup chip for debugging - that always keeps my
> chance to reboot from main bios chip. And removes the need for
> desoldering etc.
> And second problem is that original bios is checking second chip - and
> trying to recover it by flashing the bios from main chip on reboot?
> rewriting coreboot. AFAICS this could be solved by including some
> signatures etc. It seems to be easy to find out. May be someone is
> working on this?
> BTW I can send the patch for flashrom - but I think that with
> information I mentioned above somebody could make it much better than my
> ugly hack. I hope the regs should be the same for all latest Gigabyte
> MBs using IT8720/18
It would be great if you could send that patch. It will help us make a
flashrom design decision that works for all boards with multiple flash
By the way, some of us have good contacts at ITE, so we can ask ITE for
details about the undocumented registers.
before we change flashrom to work with current layout requirements, we
should summarize the features we need/want, and then decide how to
handle the individual layout regions internally.
"write strategy" describes a combination of erase+write commands with a
given block size, touching some blocks.
"read protected" describes a region which can not be read.
"write protected" describes a region which can not be written.
"write once" describes a region which can be written exactly once in the
If you add a feature to the list, please give it a nickname so we know
which feature people are referring to. Some of the features below might
not be desirable, but I want to list them anyway so we can explicitly
declare them as unsupported if needed.
fullwrite-unrestricted: Write a chip-sized image, no special read/write
restrictions of the chip, no layout file needs to be specified. Default
write case right now.
fullwrite-noread: Write a chip-sized image, reading anything from the
chip is not possible. Many DVD writers fall in that category. No
verification, violates our reliability guarantees.
fullwrite-postread: Write a chip-sized image, reading anything from the
chip is only possible after write. Chips which are read-locked until a
full erase/write fall in that category. Do those exist as standalone
flash chips or only integrated into processors?
fullwrite-partialread: Write a chip-sized image, reading is only
possible in some chip regions. Only partial verification, violates our
fullwrite-partialwrite: Write a chip-sized image, but writing is only
possible in some regions. This is obviously a conflict unless the image
has the same contents as the chip in the write-protected regions and
there is a possible write strategy for the whole image which does not
touch the write-protected regions. Should flashrom always refuse this
scenario, or only refuse it in case of conflicts?
partialwrite-unrestricted: Write only parts of an image, the rest of the
chip contents is kept, no special read/write restrictions.
partialwrite-partialread: Write only parts of an image, the rest of the
chip contents is kept, reading is only possible in some chip regions. If
no read-protected regions are written and a suitable write strategy
exists, should flashrom warn? If a read-protected region is written,
should flashrom warn/refuse due to reliability requirements?
partialwrite-partialwrite: Write only parts of an image, the rest of the
chip contents is kept, writing is only possible in some chip regions. If
no write-protected regions are written and a suitable write strategy
exists, should flashrom warn? flashrom will refuse to write a
fullread-unrestricted: Read the full chip, no special read restrictions
of the chip.
partialread-unrestricted: Read only parts of a chip, no special read
restrictions of the chip.
partialread-partialread: Read only parts of a chip, some regions are
read-protected. flashrom should refuse to read any read-protected regions.
partialread-imagefiller: If only parts of a chip are read and the read
image has full chip size, what should be used as filler for unread
regions? 0x00 or 0xff?
partialread-layout-imagesize: If only parts of a chip are read, should
the read image still have full chip size with all read regions filled in
at the respective locations?
partialread-layout-split: If only parts of a chip are read, should it be
possible to write each region (or a combination thereof) to a separate
image file, and would that mapping be specified in the layout file?
partialwrite-layout-split: If only parts of a chip are written, should
it be possible to collect each part of the new image from a separate
image file, and would that mapping be specified in the layout file?
readwrite-protection-time: Which read protection and write protection
times exist? Temporary lock until unlock, temporary lock until chip soft
reset, temporary lock until chip/programmer hard reset (powerdown or
reset line), permanent eternal lock.
readwrite-protection-type: Which read protection and write protection
types exist? Programmer lock (e.g. Intel SPI), hardware chip lock (WP
pin), software chip lock (chip command).
readwrite-protection-interaction: How should we express this situation:
A region is write-locked with a software chip lock, but to remove that
software chip lock, a hardware chip lock has to be disabled first, then
the software chip lock can be disabled.
partialaccess-crash: Some regions in the chip are really off-limits and
will cause an unrecoverable error (system crash) when accessed (read or
write). That seems to be the case for some EC/flash interactions.
Comments? Any forks of flashrom (e.g. chromium) which need
infrastructure features not mentioned above?