Hello
I discovered that the chip "AT26DF321-SU" is recognized as "AT25DF321".
This is the output from a "AT26DF321-SU":
Probing for Atmel AT25DF321, 4096 kB: probe_spi_rdid_generic: id1 0x1f,
id2 0x4700
Found Atmel flash chip "AT25DF321" (4096 kB, SPI) on serprog.
Chip status register is 0x1c.
Chip status register: Sector Protection Register Lock (SRPL) is not set
Chip status register: Bit 6 is not set
Chip status register: Erase/Program Error (EPE) is not set
Chip status register: WP# pin (WPP) is not asserted
Chip status register: Software Protection Status (SWP): all sectors are
protected
Chip status register: Write Enable Latch (WEL) is not set
Chip status register: Write In Progress (WIP/BUSY) is not set
It seems that both chips have the same ID's.
I have readed and written the "AT26DF321-SU" and it worked.
If you need more informations or if i should test something -> Let me
know. Greetings
Greetings
On 22.03.2017 14:08, Zak wrote:
> Heya
>
> Thanks for the reply, I'm using the latest version 1.2 for windows and I
> use this programmer with other softwares with that same dll and it works
> fine on both ports
>
> But in case I tried with the old libftdi 0.18 and it's the same error
Sorry, I'm just poking in the dark. Another idea: Some other driver or
program might have claimed access to port B and is blocking it. flash-
rom doesn't know how to handle that, maybe your "other softwares" do.
Nico
>
> Regards
>
> Le 22 mars 2017 12:14, "Nico Huber" <nico.huber(a)secunet.com> a écrit :
>
>> Hi Zak,
>>
>> On 21.03.2017 17:28, Zak wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I got flashrom compiled for windows and it works like a charm (has to
>>> tweet the code a little, add data for the chips i want to work with, add
>>> 4BA and fast rading for FT2232), it works perfectly fine but only for
>>> the port A (flashrom -p ft2232_spi:type=2232H,port=A)
>>>
>>> Using default programmer "ft2232_spi" with arguments "type=2232H,port=A".
>>> Calibrating delay loop... OK.
>>> Found Macronix flash chip "flashrom -p
>>> ft2232_spi:type=2232H,port=AMX25L25665E" (32768 kB, SPI)
>>> on ft2232_spi.
>>> Reading flash... (0% to done.)
>>>
>>> If i use the port B (flashrom -p ft2232_spi:type=2232H,port=B), i get
>>> this error
>>>
>>> Calibrating delay loop... OK.
>>> Unable to reset FTDI device (USB device unavailable).
>>> Unable to set latency timer (USB device unavailable).
>>> Unable to set bitmode to SPI (USB device unavailable).
>>> ftdi_write_data: -666, USB device unavailable
>>> Error: Programmer initialization failed.
>>>
>>> I get this error also if i try to compile with make
>>> CONFIG_DEFAULT_PROGRAMMER=PROGRAMMER_FT2232_SPI
>>> CONFIG_DEFAULT_PROGRAMMER_ARGS="type=2232H,port=B" to force port B
>>>
>>> I looked around i didn't find any solution to fix this, anyone could
>>> give me a hand?
>>
>> the problem probably lies within your (windows) version of libftdi. I'd
>> try another OS / libftdi to rule that out.
>>
>> Nico
>>
>>
>
Hello,
I got flashrom compiled for windows and it works like a charm (has to
tweet the code a little, add data for the chips i want to work with, add
4BA and fast rading for FT2232), it works perfectly fine but only for
the port A (flashrom -p ft2232_spi:type=2232H,port=A)
Using default programmer "ft2232_spi" with arguments "type=2232H,port=A".
Calibrating delay loop... OK.
Found Macronix flash chip "flashrom -p
ft2232_spi:type=2232H,port=AMX25L25665E" (32768 kB, SPI)
on ft2232_spi.
Reading flash... (0% to done.)
If i use the port B (flashrom -p ft2232_spi:type=2232H,port=B), i get
this error
Calibrating delay loop... OK.
Unable to reset FTDI device (USB device unavailable).
Unable to set latency timer (USB device unavailable).
Unable to set bitmode to SPI (USB device unavailable).
ftdi_write_data: -666, USB device unavailable
Error: Programmer initialization failed.
I get this error also if i try to compile with make
CONFIG_DEFAULT_PROGRAMMER=PROGRAMMER_FT2232_SPI
CONFIG_DEFAULT_PROGRAMMER_ARGS="type=2232H,port=B" to force port B
I looked around i didn't find any solution to fix this, anyone could
give me a hand?
Thanks a bunch
Regards
On 19/03/2017, David Hendricks <david.hendricks(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Sam Kuper <sam.kuper(a)uclmail.net> wrote:
>> Is there a term that unambiguously describes method 2(b)?
>
> Just to clarify, in that situation is the ROM is in a dedicated programmer
> such as http://www.dediprog.com/pd/universal-programmer/progmaster-u4 ? I'd
> describe it as "standalone."
Good to know. Thank you!
On 20/03/2017, Sam Kuper <sam.kuper(a)uclmail.net> wrote:
> On 20/03/2017, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006(a)gmx.net>
> wrote:
>> On 18.03.2017 17:50, Sam Kuper wrote:
>>> Ideally, Flashrom would license the content under the GFDL and CC
>>> BY-SA 3.0, making the content entirely license-compatible with content
>>> from Wikipedia and from the Stack Exchange network of websites.
>>
>> Any licensing which inhibits moving code comments to the wiki or vice
>> versa is a really bad idea.
>
> I doubt this would be a problem in practice. I think there are
> standard exceptions for this sort of thing. But I'll try to remember
> to look into it, because if there *aren't* exceptions for it, then
> you're right: it could be a problem.
Also, even if the wiki content were licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0, I
don't see how there would be any more of an impediment to moving text
between the code and the wiki than presently exists. Please correct me
if you think I am mistaken.
Hi Sam,
welcome to the flashrom mailing list.
Starting almost identical discussions on two different mailing lists is
not productive. It _might_ make sense to revisit this after the
discussion on the coreboot mailing list has come to a conclusion.
On 18.03.2017 17:50, Sam Kuper wrote:
> I have looked at a number of pages on the Flashrom wiki, though not all of them.
>
> None of the pages I have looked at mentioned the license (if any)
> under which their content is available.
>
> My understanding is that means that much (maybe all) of the
> documentation in the Flashrom wiki is proprietary (at least, in the
> overwhelming majority of jurisdictions). IANAL, though.
>
> [...]
> Alternatively, it would be great if the Flashrom wiki contributors
> could license the documentation in the wiki under one or more free
> culture licenses: https://freedomdefined.org/Licenses
>
> Ideally, Flashrom would license the content under the GFDL and CC
> BY-SA 3.0, making the content entirely license-compatible with content
> from Wikipedia and from the Stack Exchange network of websites.
Why would we want to do that?
The GFDL is pretty much the worst licensing choice: it is GPL
incompatible, so we would hurt ourselves by using it.
CC licensing might make sense, but I don't see the benefit from making
the content license-compatible with wikipedia (anything copied from
third-party websites to wikipedia is quickly marked as copyvio, and then
reverted), and stackexchange questions about flashrom usually receive
zero upvotes (maybe because people tend to look elsewhere for flashrom
information).
Any licensing which inhibits moving code comments to the wiki or vice
versa is a really bad idea.
> If you agree with the position I have taken above, please do reply to
> this thread to say so, especially if you have suggestions about how to
> best achieve the (re-)licensing.
>
> If you disagree with my position, please reply to explain your disagreement.
It looks like you're trying to start a vote with special rules where
only those who disagree with you have the burden of explaining their
position.
I'm afraid that's not how it works.
Regards,
Carl-Daniel