On 8 March 2015 at 00:46, Steven Honeyman <stevenhoneyman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8 March 2015 at 00:24, Stefan Tauner
> <stefan.tauner(a)alumni.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 02:24:49 +0000
>> Steven Honeyman <stevenhoneyman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Probe and Read both worked, no problems
>>>
>>> Log:
>>>
>>> […]
>>> Probing for Intel 25F640S33T8, 8192 kB: probe_spi_rdid_generic: id1
>>> 0xc2, id2 0x517
>>> Probing for Macronix MX23L1654, 2048 kB: probe_spi_rdid_generic: id1
>>> 0xc2, id2 0x517
>>> Probing for Macronix MX23L3254, 4096 kB: probe_spi_rdid_generic: id1
>>> 0xc2, id2 0x517
>>> Probing for Macronix MX23L6454, 8192 kB: probe_spi_rdid_generic: id1
>>> 0xc2, id2 0x517
>>> Found Macronix flash chip "MX23L6454" (8192 kB, SPI) on buspirate_spi.
>>> Probing for Macronix MX23L12854, 16384 kB: probe_spi_rdid_generic: id1
>>> 0xc2, id2 0x517
>>> Probing for Macronix MX25L512(E)/MX25V512(C), 64 kB:
>>> probe_spi_rdid_generic: id1 0xc2, id2 0x517
>>> Probing for Macronix MX25L1005(C)/MX25L1006E, 128 kB:
>>> probe_spi_rdid_generic: id1 0xc2, id2 0x517
>>> Probing for Macronix MX25L2005(C)/MX25L2006E, 256 kB:
>>> probe_spi_rdid_generic: id1 0xc2, id2 0x517
>>> Probing for Macronix MX25L4005(A/C)/MX25L4006E, 512 kB: RDID byte 0
>>> parity violation. probe_spi_rdid_generic: id1 0x00, id2 0x00
>>> Probing for Macronix MX25L8005/MX25L8006E/MX25L8008E/MX25V8005, 1024
>>> kB: RDID byte 0 parity violation. probe_spi_rdid_generic: id1 0x00,
>>> id2 0x00
>>> Probing for Macronix MX25L1605, 2048 kB: RDID byte 0 parity violation.
>>> probe_spi_rdid_generic: id1 0x00, id2 0x00
>>> […]
>>
>> Hello Steven,
>>
>> thanks for your report!
>> The log looks quite suspicious in terms of reproducibility. The excerpt
>> above shows that the chip replied two different things when queried with
>> probe_spi_rdid_generic: all zeros and the correct ID (0xc2517)
>> respectively. This is usually an indication for wiring problems. If it
>> was that inconsistent all the time you would probably not be able to
>> read a good image. Did you read the chip multiple times and compared
>> the results?
>
> Hmmm, I didn't (because it was so slow), but I can do if you think
> there were issues.
>
> I only had a quick look through the image but it looked to be what I
> was expecting.
> I'll dump the image using some other software/hardware and make sure
> that matches too.
...ok definitely a false positive on the "works OK" status!
3rd resolder, 8th read attempt now. I haven't got two matching files
yet. It keeps missing chunks out, at regular intervals, but different
positions each time.
I'm happy to upload/send the files & logs somewhere if they'd be useful to you?
Tomorrow I'll try and find something else that will recognise & read
this. The chip came from a working board so I know the ROM is good.