flashrom October 2017

flashrom@flashrom.org

18 participants
36 discussions

Re: [flashrom] New SPI NOR Flash product Support
by Stefan Tauner 15 Aug '19

15 Aug '19

On Mon, 9 May 2016 20:46:18 -0700 David Hendricks <dhendrix(a)google.com> wrote: > Hi Victor, > From Flashrom's software perspective all chips with the same ID are > indistinguishable. > > Part number often includes characteristics such as package and thermal > tolerance which do not affect software compatibility. However, we will add the new names to the in-program (and hence wiki) database so that this new information becomes public. Thanks for the heads up, Victor. … [View More]

4 4

80/100/132 column line width policy
by Carl-Daniel Hailfinger 15 Dec '18

15 Dec '18

Hi, we're hitting the 80 column limit in our code in ways which actually reduce readability for the code. Examples are various multiline messages and complicated nested code where refactoring to a separate function doesn't make sense. Keeping the old 80 column limit is not really an option anymore. Standard terminal sizes have one of 80, 100 or 132 columns. Given the monitor resolutions many people have nowadays, I think it is safe to say that you can fit two xterms with 100 columns … [View More]

7 9

Re: [flashrom] 回信: flashrom post acknowledgement
by Nico Huber 01 Nov '17

01 Nov '17

Hello Alex, On 31.10.2017 07:42, alexlu6(a)mxic.com.tw wrote: > Dear Sir, > > I had posted the patch update for almost 2 months, Can you tell us > that > when will the update merged to the main flashrom project trunk ? Our not any time soon. It looks like you posted your patch to the wrong version of flashrom. There's another branch/fork at chromium[1]. I'll put some people in CC who can tell you how to push your patch there. Thanks anyway for your contribution. … [View More]

2 1

Re: [flashrom] Compiling from source on Chromebook:GalliumOS - can't get libusb?
by Nico Huber 31 Oct '17

31 Oct '17

Hi Anders, On 31.10.2017 01:18, Anders Nelson wrote: > Hi guys, > > I'm trying to compile the latest stable source on my Ubuntu-based GalliumOS > system running on a recent x86_64 Chromebook. > > I get the error: > > ichspi.o: In function `ich_init_spi': > ichspi.c:(.text+0x26b2): undefined reference to > `read_ich_descriptors_via_fdo' looking at the code, there seem to be different ways used to decide if we build for x86. So some code for x86 gets built in … [View More]

1 0

回信: flashrom post acknowledgement
by alexlu6＠mxic.com.tw 31 Oct '17

31 Oct '17

Dear Sir, I had posted the patch update for almost 2 months, Can you tell us that when will the update merged to the main flashrom project trunk ? Our customer is waiting for the update. Thanks! Alex Lu flashrom-bounces(a)flashrom.org 寄件人: "flashrom" <flashrom-bounces(a)flashrom.org> 2017/09/05 下午 01:04 收件人 alexlu6(a)mxic.com.tw, 副本抄送主旨 flashrom post acknowledgement Your message entitled Patch to flashrom for Macronix M25U12835F flash support and write … [View More]

1 0

Compiling from source on Chromebook:GalliumOS - can't get libusb?
by Anders Nelson 31 Oct '17

31 Oct '17

Hi guys, I'm trying to compile the latest stable source on my Ubuntu-based GalliumOS system running on a recent x86_64 Chromebook. I get the error: ichspi.o: In function `ich_init_spi': ichspi.c:(.text+0x26b2): undefined reference to `read_ich_descriptors_via_fdo' I've installed all the packages noted in the README even though I'm only interested in supporting the FTDI 2232H chip on the breakout board sold by SeeedStudio. Any suggestions I can try to get this built? I'm relatively new to … [View More]

1 0

Future flashrom development
by Nico Huber 25 Oct '17

25 Oct '17

Dear flashrom contributors, you might have noticed that there hasn't been a release of flashrom in the past 1.5 years. That doesn't mean that there wasn't any progress, though. Development has continued and some patches were merged into a common branch [1]. Alas, not in the `stable` branch of the official repository. I'd rather not discuss now, why (it's complicated). As the original plan was to have two separate branches `stable` and `staging` anyway [2] and we finally got the first commit … [View More]

4 10

Re: [flashrom] Future flashrom development (Stefan's PoV I)
by Stefan Tauner 23 Oct '17

23 Oct '17

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 16:14:04 -0700 David Hendricks <david.hendricks(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the detailed write-up. I suppose there's another part coming so > I don't want to get too deep into discussion just yet, but one part in > particular caught my eye: > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:20 AM, Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner(a)gmx.at> wrote: > > > While there was a bunch of patches that have been piled up back then it > > was less of a problem … [View More]

1 0

Re: [flashrom] Future flashrom development
by Antonio Ospite 23 Oct '17

23 Oct '17

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 08:01:00 +0200 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Nico, > > 2017-10-13 2:40 GMT+02:00 Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de>: > > > So I propose the following: Forget the two branches model, start > > a `master` branch with either the current state of `staging` or > > my proposed move to `stable` [3] and release flashrom-1.0 right > > away. > > I believe staging/devel/etc branches in projects managed with git … [View More]

2 1

Re: [flashrom] Future flashrom development
by Stefan Tauner 23 Oct '17

23 Oct '17

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 08:01:00 +0200 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov(a)gmail.com> wrote: > From the package maintainer's point of view it would be easier and > simpler from if flashrom just have one single monotonically increasing > branch (master?) with tags applied to some commits eventually (I > prefer more frequent tagging though), rather than two branches where > the purpose of one is to be blindly merged into another. The latter was not the purpose as the future dev thread … [View More]

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

flashrom October 2017